[6450-01-P]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket Number EERE–2006–BT–STD–0127]

RIN: 1904–AC07

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Standby Mode 

and Off Mode for Microwave Ovens

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) and public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial 

equipment. Microwave ovens are covered products under EPCA, although there are no 

existing microwave oven standards. EPCA requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to determine whether amended, more stringent, standards are technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy. 

Additionally, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended 

EPCA to require any final rule adopted after July 1, 2010 establishing or revising energy 

Deleted: Part
conservation standards for covered products, including microwave ovens, to address 

standby mode and off mode energy use. On October 17, 2008, DOE issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in which DOE proposed amendments to the energy 

conservation standards for several residential and commercial products, including 

microwave ovens. In response to the NOPR, DOE received comment expressing concern 

and encouraging the Department to re-examine standby mode and off mode of 

microwave ovens as a part of DOE’s rulemaking analyses. Additionally, DOE received 

comment alleging certain data problems affecting DOE’s rulemaking analyses. DOE’s 

preliminary assessment suggested that the concerns might be valid, thereby necessitating 

additional, supplemental rulemaking analyses. In this notice, DOE responds to the 

comments received on the NOPR and proposes amended energy conservation standards 

for microwave oven standby mode and off mode. The notice also announces a public 

meeting to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and 

results.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on [DATE] from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., in 

Washington, D.C. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See section VIII, 

“Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this SNOPR before 

and after the public meeting, but no later than [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 
FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION]. See section VIII, “Public Participation,” for 

details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room NUMBER, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 

D.C. 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Please note 

that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advanced security 

screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should 

advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 to 

initiate the necessary procedures.

Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for Energy Conservation 

Standards for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode and must provide docket 

number EERE–2006–BT-STD–0127 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904–

AC07. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods.

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments.

2. E-mail: home_appliance.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, D.C. 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD. It is 

not necessary to include printed copies.

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC, 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit 

all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted 

to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy through the methods listed above 

and by e-mail to Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on 

the rulemaking process, see section VIII of this document (“Public Participation”).

Docket: The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket web page can be found at:

www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=10;po=0;s=EERE-2006-BT-STD-0127. This 
web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the regulations.gov site. The 

regulations.gov web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section VIII for information 

on how to submit comments through regulations.gov.

For further information on how to submit or review public comments or

participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Stephen L. Witkowski, P.E., U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586–7463. E-mail: 

Stephen.Witkowski@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Ari Altman, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121. Telephone: 

(202) 287-6307. E-mail: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

II. Introduction

A. Authority
B. Background

1. Current Standards

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Microwave Ovens

III.General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Energy Savings

2. Significance of Savings

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV.Methodology and Revisions to the Analyses Employed in the October 2008 Proposed 

Rule

A. Product Classes

B. Technology Assessment

1. Cooking Sensors

2. Display Technologies

3. Power Supply and Control Boards

4. Power-Down Options

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Energy Use Metric

2. Standby Power Levels

3. Manufacturing Costs

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Costs

2. Annual Energy Consumption

3. Energy Prices

4. Repair and Maintenance Costs

5. Product Lifetime

6. Discount Rates

7. Effective Date of New Standards

8. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

10. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

E. National Impact Analysis —National Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis

1. General

2. Shipments

3. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and Income Impacts

4. Other Inputs

5. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
H. Employment Impact Analysis

I. Utility Impact Analysis

J. Environmental Assessment

K. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

L. Discussion of Other Comments

1. Off Mode Power Consumption

2. Proposed Standards for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Energy Use

3. Manufacturer Tax Credits Impact on Market Adoption of More Efficient 

Products

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

3. National Impact Analysis

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Product

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

C. Proposed Standard

1. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards

VI.Additional Technical Corrections to 10 CFR 430.32 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

VIII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

IX.Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA or the 

Act), as amended, provides that any amended energy conservation standard DOE 

prescribes for certain consumer products, such as microwave ovens, shall be designed to 

“achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency...which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.” (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) The new or amended standard must “result in significant conservation of 

energy.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other statutory 

provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended energy conservation 

standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode. The proposed standards, 

which prescribe the maximum allowable energy use when a product is in standby mode, 

are shown in Table I.1.

1

These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all 

products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or 

after April 1, 2014.

Table I.1 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Oven Standby 

Mode and Off Mode (Compliance Starting in 2014)

Product Classes Proposed Energy Conservation Standard

Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Combination 

Microwave Ovens

Maximum Standby Power = 1.0 watt

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Combination Microwave Ovens

Maximum Standby Power = 2.2 watts

 

1 DOE considered energy use in off mode for microwave ovens, but is not proposing a maximum allowable 

off mode power because it is unaware of any current microwave ovens that are capable of operating in such 

a mode.
DOE’s analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a significant 

amount of energy–an estimated 0.41 quads over 30 years (2014 through 2043). 

According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 

2010 (AEO 2010), total residential energy consumption is projected to be 21.3 quads in 

2015. The amount of energy saved per year is equivalent to 0.06 percent of the projected 

household energy use.

The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for products shipped in 2014–2043, in 2010$, ranges 

from $1.82 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.59 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate).2The NPV is the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings during the 

analysis period, minus the estimated increased product costs, discounted to 2011. The 

industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry 

from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2014 to 2043). Using a real 

discount rate of 7.2 percent, DOE estimates that INPV for manufacturers of all 

microwave ovens in the base case is $1.1 billion in 2010$. If DOE adopts the proposed 

standard, it expects manufacturers will lose 4.7 to 6.5 percent of their INPV, or 

approximately $52.9 million to $73.6 million. Using a 7-percent discount rate, the NPV 

of consumer costs and savings from today’s proposed standards would amount to 25 to 

34 times the total estimated industry losses. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the NPV 

would amount to 49 to 68 times the total estimated industry losses.

 

2

 DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent based on guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB Circular A-4, section E, September 17, 2003). See section IV.E for further information.

Deleted: over 30 years

Deleted: two

Comment [A1]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
The projected economic impacts of the proposed standards on individual 

consumers are positive. For example, for Microwave-Only and Countertop Combination 

Microwave Ovens (Product Class 1), the estimated average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings 

in 2010$ are $13, and all consumers of these products would have positive economic 

impacts. For Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens (Product Class 

2), the estimated average LCC savings in 2010$ are $4, and most consumers of this 

product would have positive economic impacts.

In addition, the proposed standards would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings projected from the proposed standards would result in 

cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of 31.48 million metric tons (Mt)3of 

carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2014–2043. During this period, the proposed standards would 

result in emissions reductions of 25.6 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX), and have a 

negligible impact on emissions of mercury (Hg).4 DOE estimates the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction is between $139 million and $2,118 million, 

expressed in 2010$. DOE also estimates the present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reduction, expressed in 2010$, is between $3.82 million and $39.3 million at a 

 

3 Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

4 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the most recent version of the Annual Energy Outlook

(AEO) Reference case forecast. As noted in TSD chapter 16, this forecast accounts for regulatory emissions 

reductions through 2009, including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but 

not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, including 

the recently finalized transport rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution rule issued on July 6, 2011, do not appear 

in the forecast at this time.

Comment [A2]: Footnote changes recommended 

by OIRA. 

Deleted: currently proposed CAIR replacement

Deleted: Clean

Deleted: Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (August 2, 

2010)),

Deleted: base case
7-percent discount rate, and between $7.44 million and $76.4 million at a 3-percent 

discount rate.5

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values over a 30-year period. The annualized monetary values are the 

sum of (1) the annualized national economic value of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings 

from using less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, which is another way 

of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.

6

The value of the CO2 reductions, 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a range of 

values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent interagency process. The monetary 

costs and benefits of cumulative emissions reductions are reported in 2010$ to permit 

comparisons with the other costs and benefits in the same dollar units. The derivation of 

the SCC values is discussed in section IV.K.

 

5 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of values used in evaluating 

the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further guidance 

regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its 

rulemakings.

6 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value in the same year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings. To calculate the present value, DOE used discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for 

all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount 

rates, as shown in Table I.2. From the present value, DOE then calculated the corresponding time-series of 

fixed annual payments over a 30-year period starting in the same year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings. The fixed annual payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized 

values were determined would be a steady stream of payments.
Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions, whereas the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and CO2 savings are performed with different 

methods that use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of microwave ovens shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values, 

on the other hand, reflect the present value of all future climate-related impacts resulting 

from the emission of one ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 

2100.

Table I.2 shows the annualized values for today’s proposed standards, expressed 

in 2010$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate for benefits and costs other than CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-

percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $20.3 million per year in 

increased product costs, while the annualized benefits are $167 million in reduced 

product operating costs, $35.4 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.74 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $184 million per year. Using a 3-

percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series corresponding to a 

value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards proposed in today’s rule is $21.6

million per year in increased product costs, while the annualized benefits are $205 
million in reduced operating costs, $35.4 million in CO2 reductions, and $2.14 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $221 million per year.
Table I.2 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Microwave 

Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode for Products Sold in 2014-2043

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate* Low Estimate* High Estimate*

Monetized (million 2010$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 167 150 185

3% 205 182 229

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 9.02 8.49 9.55

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 35.4 33.3 37.6

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 55.9 52.5 59.3

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 108.0 101.5 114.6

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**

7% 1.74 1.65 1.82

3% 2.14 2.02 2.26

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 178 to 277 160 to 253 196 to 301

7% 204 185 224

3% 243 217 269

3% plus CO2 range 216 to 315 193 to 286 241 to 346

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 20.32 23.39 20.25

3% 21.59 25.48 21.48

Total Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 157 to 256 137 to 230 176 to 281

7% 184 162 204

3% 221 192 247

3% plus CO2 range 195 to 294 167 to 260 219 to 324

*

The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the

AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In 

addition, incremental product costs reflect a declining trend (default learning rate) for product prices in the 

Primary Estimate, constant prices (no learning rate) for product prices in the Low Estimate, and a declining 

trend (high learning rate) in the High Estimate. The derivation and application of learning rates for product 

prices is explained in section IV.D.1.

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under 

several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per 

ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The 

value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

†

Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 

3-percent discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” 
and “3% plus CO2 range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount 

rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

DOE has made an initial determination that the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, while maintaining product utility in the form of a continual clock 

display, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes 

that products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for one 

of the product classes covered by today’s proposal.

7 Based on the analyses described 

above, DOE found the benefits of the proposed standards to the Nation (energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, consumer LCC savings, and emission reductions) 

outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for manufacturers).

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this 

supplemental notice and related information collected and analyzed during the course of 

this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy use levels presented in this notice that are 

either higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that 

incorporate the proposed standards in part. In particular, DOE is proposing TSL 3 for 

built-in products as the level which it has tentatively concluded meet the applicable 

statutory criteria (i.e., the highest level that is technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and would result in significant conservation of energy). Based upon public 

 

7

Products in the Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens product class 

that meet the proposed standards are currently commercially available. The Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Combination Microwave Ovens class does not currently comprise products that meet the proposed 

standards, primarily because of the larger components necessary for the convection system and the more 

complex displays. However, DOE believes it is technologically feasible for all microwave ovens to meet 

the proposed standards.
comments and any accompanying data submissions, DOE would consider finalizing other 

TSLs (as presented in this NOPR or at some level in between), including the option of 

not finalizing the standard for built-ins proposed in this rule. Accordingly, DOE is

presenting a variety of issues throughout today's notice upon which it is seeking comment 

which will bear upon its consideration of standards for built-ins in the final rule.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying today’s 

proposal as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the 

establishment of energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode and 

off mode.

A. Authority

Title III of EPCA sets forth various provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.8EPCA covers 

consumer products and certain commercial equipment (referred to collectively hereafter 

as “covered products”), including the microwave ovens that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10))9

 

8

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.

9 DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must periodically review its already established 

energy conservation standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE 

would need to conduct would occur no later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or 

amending a standard for a covered product.

Comment [A3]: Change recommended by OIRA.
Under the Act, DOE’s energy conservation program for covered products consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 

rest of the program. Section 323 of the Act authorizes DOE, subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), Pub. L. 100-12, amended EPCA 

to establish prescriptive standards for cooking products, specifically gas cooking 

products. No standards were established for microwave ovens. Manufacturers of covered 

products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) and when making representations to the public 

regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 

standards adopted under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The test procedure for microwave 

ovens currently appears at title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart 

B, appendix I.

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing amended standards for covered products. 

As indicated above, any amended standard for a covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, EPCA precludes 
DOE from adopting any standard for certain products, including microwave ovens, if no 

test procedure has been established for the product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) Moreover, 

DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) if it would not result in the significant 

conservation of energy, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The Act 

also provides that, in deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, 

DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must do so after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the 

products subject to the standard;

2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard;

3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, water, savings likely to 

result directly from the imposition of the standard;

4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to 

result from the imposition of the standard;

5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard;

6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i))

EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an 

amended or new standard if the Secretary finds that interested persons have established 

by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the 

Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of 

purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when promulgating a 

standard for a type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE 
must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or 

class of products for any group of covered products which have the same function or 

intended use, if products within such group – (A) consume a different kind of energy 

from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a 

capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 

class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard than applies or 

will apply to the other products within that type or class. Id. In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE 

must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature and other 

factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(2))

Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State laws or 

regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of section 

327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

Finally, section 310(3) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) amended EPCA to require that energy conservation 

standards address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)) 

Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after July 1, 2010, it 
must, pursuant to criteria for adoption of standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use into the standard, if feasible, or adopt a separate 

standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) These provisions 

in EISA 2007 do not preclude DOE from considering standards for standby mode and off 

mode energy use in a rulemaking that does not consider standards for active mode energy 

use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate standby mode and off mode energy 

use into any standard it adopts in the final rule.

It is pursuant to the authority set forth above that DOE is conducting the present 

SNOPR rulemaking for standby mode and off mode electricity consumption of 

microwave ovens.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563. (76 

FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 

required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 

Deleted: such

Comment [A4]: Change recommended by OIRA.
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that 

regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, 

such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can 

be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the 

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.” In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) has emphasized that such techniques may include “identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.” For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today’s 

proposed rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the 

extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this 

rulemaking, the energy efficiency standards proposed herein by DOE achieve maximum 

net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards

Section 310 of EISA 2007 amends section 325 of EPCA to require DOE to 

regulate standby mode and off mode energy use for all covered products, including 
microwave ovens, as part of energy conservation standards for which a final rule is 

adopted after July 10, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A))

Based on its ongoing analyses and comments from interested parties, DOE 

decided not to amend energy conservation standards for microwave oven energy factor 

(microwave oven operation in active mode), but instead develop a separate energy use 

metric for standby mode and off mode. 74 FR 16040 (Apr. 8, 2009).

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Microwave Ovens 

On March 15, 2006, DOE published on its website a document titled, 

“Rulemaking Framework for Commercial Clothes Washers and Residential Dishwashers, 

Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products” (Framework Document).10 71 FR 15059. The

Framework Document described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE 

anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation standards for these products, and

identified various issues to be resolved in conducting the rulemaking. On December 4, 

2006, DOE posted on its website two spreadsheet tools for this rulemaking.11 The first

tool calculates life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback periods (PBPs). The second tool—the 

national impact analysis (NIA) spreadsheet—calculates the impacts on shipments and the 

national energy savings (NES) and NPV at various candidate standard levels. DOE 

subsequently published the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) for this 

 

10 This document is available on the DOE website at: 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/dehumidifiers.html. (Last accessed March

18, 2011.)

11 These spreadsheets are available on the DOE website at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential_products.html. (Last accessed 

March 18, 2011) 
rulemaking (72 FR 64432 (Nov. 15, 2007), the November 2007 ANOPR) and on 

December 13, 2007, held a public meeting to present and seek comment on the analytical 

methodology and results in the ANOPR (the December 2007 Public Meeting).

At the December 2007 Public Meeting, DOE invited comment in particular on the 

following issues concerning microwave ovens: (1) incorporation of the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) test standard IEC Standard 6230112 into DOE’s 

microwave oven test procedure to measure standby mode and off mode power; (2) IEC 

Standard 62301 test conditions; and (3) a requirement that if the measured standby mode 

power varies as a function of the time displayed, the standby mode power test would run 

for 12 hours, with an initial clock setting of 12:00.

Interested parties’ comments presented during the December 2007 Public Meeting 

and submitted in response to the November 2007 ANOPR addressed the standby mode 

and off mode energy use of microwave ovens and the ability to combine that energy use 

into a single metric with cooking energy use. Those concerns lead DOE to thoroughly

investigate standby mode, off mode, and active mode power consumption of microwave 

ovens.

On October 17, 2008, DOE published a NOPR (the October 2008 NOPR) for 

cooking products and commercial clothes washers in the Federal Register proposing 

amended energy conservation standards. 73 FR 62034. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

 

12 IEC standards are available for purchase at: http://www.iec.ch/.
tentatively concluded that a standard for microwave oven standby mode and off mode 

energy use would be technologically feasible and economically justified. Id. at 62120. 

Therefore, concurrent with the standards NOPR, DOE published in the Federal Register a 

test procedure NOPR for microwave ovens to incorporate a measurement of standby 

mode and off mode power and to consider inclusion of such power as part of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008).

In conjunction with the October 2008 NOPR, DOE posted on its website the 

associated technical support document (TSD). The TSD included the results of DOE’s 

analyses, including: (1) the market and technology assessment, (2) screening analysis, (3) 

engineering analysis, (4) energy and water use determination, (5) markups analysis to 

determine product price, (6) LCC and PBP analyses, (7) shipments analysis, (8) NES and 

NIA, and (9) manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). The engineering analysis spreadsheet, 

the LCC spreadsheets, the national and regional impact analysis spreadsheets, and the 

MIA spreadsheet were all made available at 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/clothes_washers.html. 

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE concluded based on its additional investigations 

that, “although it may be mathematically possible to combine energy consumption into a 

single metric encompassing active (cooking), standby, and off modes, it is not technically

feasible to do so at this time....” 73 FR 62034, 62043 (Oct. 17, 2008). The separate 

prescriptive standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards proposed in the 

October 2008 NOPR for microwave ovens were as shown in Table II.1.
Table II.1 October 2008 NOPR Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for 

Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode

Product Class Proposed Energy Conservation Standard

Microwave Ovens Maximum Standby Power = 1.0 watt

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE described and sought further comment on the 

analytical framework, models, and tools (e.g., LCC and NIA spreadsheets) it was using to 

analyze the impacts of energy conservation standards for this product. DOE held a public 

meeting in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2008 (the November 2008 Public 

Meeting), to present the methodologies and results for the October 2008 NOPR analyses.

Multiple interested parties commented in response to the October 2008 NOPR 

that insufficient data and information were available to complete this rulemaking, and 

requested that it be postponed to allow DOE to gather such inputs on which to base its 

analysis. Whirlpool Corporation (Whirlpool) commented that DOE should work with 

industry to gather comprehensive data. Whirlpool stated that DOE and industry must 

ensure the product is useful to the consumer at the standards adopted, which could mean 

delaying standards until the next round of rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 2; 

Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 63)

13 GE Consumer & Industrial 

 

13 A notation in the form “Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 2” identifies a written comment that DOE has received 

and has included in the docket of the standards rulemaking for microwave ovens (Docket No. EE–2006–

STD–0127). This particular notation refers to a comment (1) submitted by Whirlpool, (2) recorded in 

document number 50 in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on page 2 of document 

number 50. A notation in the form “Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 63” identifies an 

oral comment that DOE received during the November 13, 2008 NOPR public meeting and which was 

recorded in the public meeting transcript in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EE–2006–STD–

0127), available on www.regulations.gov. This particular notation refers to a comment (1) made by 

Whirlpool during the public meeting, (2) recorded in document number 40.5, which is the public meeting 

Deleted: with or without Thermal Elements
(GE) stated that DOE’s approach could have important implications for how standby 

power is approached for other covered products, and thus it is essential that DOE take the 

time to address these issues. GE commented that DOE should postpone the microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards rulemaking to allow 

standby power issues for covered products to be addressed either through negotiation or 

through a rulemaking that considers how the definition of standby power would affect all 

appliances, not just microwave ovens. GE further commented that if the microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards rulemaking was not 

postponed, DOE should issue a “no standard” standard for microwave oven standby 

power. (GE, No. 48, at pp. 2, 4)

DOE agreed with these commenters that additional information would improve its 

analysis and, in April 2009, it concluded that it should defer a decision regarding 

amended energy conservation standards for standby mode and off mode energy use for

microwave ovens pending further rulemaking. FR 16040, 16042 (Apr. 8, 2009). In the 

interim, DOE proceeded with consideration of energy conservation standards for 

microwave oven active mode energy use based on its proposals in the October 2008 

NOPR, and its analysis determined that no new standards for microwave oven active 

mode (as to cooking efficiency) were technologically feasible and economically justified.

Therefore, in a final rule published on April 8, 2009, DOE maintained the “no standard” 

standard for microwave oven active mode energy use. Id. at 16087. The final rule is 

 

transcript that is filed in the docket of this rulemaking, and (3) which appears on page 63 of document 

number 40.5.
available on DOE’s website at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/74fr16040.pdf

After continuing its analysis of microwave oven standby mode and off mode

through additional testing, research, and consideration of an updated version of IEC 

Standard 62301, DOE developed this SNOPR to enable interested parties to comment on 

the revised standby power levels proposed for microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode energy use.

The effective date of any new energy conservation standards for this product 

would be 3 years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register.

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

The test procedures for cooking products including microwave ovens initially 

appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix I. Those test procedures were part of a

May 10, 1978 final rule that first established test procedures for conventional ranges, 

cooktops, and ovens (including microwave ovens). 43 FR 20108. DOE later revised its 

test procedures for cooking products to measure their efficiency and energy use more 

accurately, publishing a final rule on October 3, 1997. 62 FR 51976. The 1997 rule

incorporated parts of IEC Standard 705–1998 and Amendment 2–1993, “Methods for 

Measuring the Performance of Microwave Ovens for Households and Similar Purposes.”

Deleted: 74 FR 16040, 16042 (Apr. 8, 2009). After 

continuing its analysis

Comment [A5]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
It measured microwave oven cooking efficiency, but did not address energy use in the 

standby mode or off mode.

Section 310 of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require DOE to amend the test 

procedures for covered products to address energy consumption of standby mode and off 

mode. If technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off 

mode energy use test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))

As discussed previously, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 

October 2008 to amend the microwave oven test procedure to provide for measuring 

standby mode and off mode power consumption, (73 FR 62134 (Oct. 17, 2008)) and held 

a public meeting on the proposed rulemaking on November 14, 2008. DOE received 

comments from interested parties both in written responses to the October 2008 NOPR 

and at the November 2008 Public Meeting.

After considering stakeholder comments and additional information, DOE issued 

an SNOPR for the test procedure for measuring microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode power consumption. 75 FR 42612 (July 22, 2010). In that SNOPR, DOE proposed 

adopting definitions of modes based on relevant provisions from IEC Standard 62301 

Second Edition, Committee Draft for Vote (IEC Standard 62301 CDV), as well as 

language to clarify application of those provisions for measuring microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode power consumption. Id. Also on July 22, 2010, DOE issued a 

repeal final rule (the July 2010 TP Final Rule) eliminating the active mode cooking 
efficiency provisions in the microwave oven test procedure after it determined that those 

provisions did not produce accurate and repeatable results. 75 FR 42579. DOE held a 

public meeting on September 16, 2010, and accepted comments, data, and information 

regarding the test procedure SNOPR no later than October 4, 2010. DOE also invited 

inputs on microwave active mode test procedures for a potential new test procedure 

rulemaking. After consideration of these comments, an interim final rule for a microwave 

oven test procedure addressing standby mode and off mode power was published in the 

Federal Register on March 9, 2011 (the March 2011 TP Interim Final Rule). 76 FR 

12825. DOE provided a 180-day comment period on the March 2011 TP Interim Final 

Rule, during which it received several comments on potential improvements to the 

microwave oven test procedure recently adopted. DOE is currently considering these 

comments, but does not believe that any of the suggested amendments would impact the 

analysis in today’s notice.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General

DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is in use by the 

associated industry or if research has progressed to development of a working prototype. 

In each standards rulemaking, therefore, DOE conducts a screening analysis, based on 

information it has gathered regarding existing technology options and prototype designs. 

In consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other stakeholders, DOE 

develops a list of design options for consideration in the rulemaking. After DOE 

determines that particular design options are technologically feasible, the first of the 
screening criteria, it evaluates each option in light of the following three additional 

criteria: (a) practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (b) adverse impacts on 

product utility or availability; and (c) adverse impacts on health or safety. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(3) and (4). All technologically feasible design 

options that pass the three additional screening criteria are candidates for further 

assessment in the engineering and subsequent analyses in the NOPR stage. DOE may 

amend the list of retained design options in SNOPR analyses based on comments 

received on the NOPR and on further research.

DOE published a list of evaluated microwave oven technologies in the November 

2007 ANOPR. 72 FR 64432 (Nov. 15, 2007). DOE identified lower-power display 

technologies, improved power supplies and controllers, and alternative cooking sensor 

technologies as options to reduce standby power. DOE conducted this research when it 

became aware of the likelihood of EISA 2007 being signed, which DOE understood was 

to contain provisions pertaining to standby mode and off mode energy use. Therefore, 

DOE presented details of each design option to stakeholders at the December 2007 Public

Meeting even though the results were not available in time for publication in the 

November 2007 ANOPR. DOE believes all of these options are technologically feasible, 

and in the ANOPR invited comment on technology options that reduce standby power in 

microwave ovens. 72 FR 64432, 64513 (Nov. 15, 2007). For more details of these 

technology options and stakeholder comments, see section IV.B of this notice.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

When DOE proposes to adopt, or to decline to adopt, an amended or new standard 

for a type (or class) of product such as microwave ovens, it must “determine the 

maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible” for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Using the design 

parameters that lead to creation of the highest available product efficiencies, in the 

engineering analysis DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (“maxtech”) standby power levels

14 for microwave ovens, as shown in Table III.1. (See chapter 

3 in the SNOPR TSD.) The max-tech microwave oven standby power level corresponds 

to a unit equipped with a default automatic power-down function that shuts off certain 

power-consuming components after a specified period of user inactivity. The max-tech 

microwave oven standby power level was determined in the October 2008 NOPR to be 

0.02 watts (W). 73 FR 62052 (Oct. 17, 2008). Based upon additional analyses for today’s 

SNOPR, DOE is proposing that this max-tech level applies to the product class of 

microwave-only ovens and countertop combination microwave ovens. For built-in and 

over-the-range combination microwave ovens, DOE proposes, based on its analysis, a 

max-tech standby power level of 0.04 W. For more details of the max-tech levels and 

stakeholder comments, see section IV.C of this notice.

 

14 As noted previously, DOE is unaware of any microwave ovens currently available that can operate in off 

mode. Therefore, efficiency levels for the purposes of evaluating standby mode and off mode energy use in 

microwave ovens are defined on the basis of standby power only.
Table III.1 Proposed Max-Tech Microwave Oven Standby Power Levels

Product Class Max-Tech Standby 

Power Level

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination 

Microwave Ovens

0.02 watts

Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave 

Ovens

0.04 watts

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Energy Savings

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet tool to estimate energy savings from amended 

standards for standby mode and off mode energy use for microwave ovens. (Section IV.E

of today’s supplemental notice and chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD describe the NIA 

spreadsheet model.) DOE forecasted energy savings throughout the period of analysis 

(beginning in 2014, the year that amended standards would go into effect, and ending in 

2043) for each TSL, relative to the base case, which represents the forecast of energy 

consumption in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. DOE quantified 

the energy savings attributable to amended energy conservation standards as the 

difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the base case. The 

base case incorporates market demand for more efficient products.

The NIA spreadsheet tool calculates the electricity savings in “site energy” 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site energy is the energy consumed directly on 

location by an individual product. DOE reports national energy savings on an annual 

basis in terms of the aggregated source energy savings, which is the savings in energy 

used to generate and transmit the energy consumed at the site. To convert site energy to 
source energy, DOE derived conversion factors, which change with time, from the AEO 

2010. (See SNOPR TSD chapter 10 for further details.)

2. Significance of Savings

EPCA, as amended, prohibits DOE from adopting a standard for a product if that 

standard would not result in “significant” energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

Although EPCA does not define the term “significant,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 

F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended “significant” energy 

savings in this context to be savings that were not “genuinely trivial.” The energy savings 

for energy conservation standards at the TSL considered in this rulemaking are nontrivial, 

and, therefore, DOE considers them “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B).

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining 

whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)) The following sections describe how DOE has addressed each of those 

seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers and Consumers

In determining the impacts of an amended standard on manufacturers, DOE first 

determines the quantitative impacts using an annual cash-flow approach. This step 

includes both a short-term assessment—based on the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between the issuance of a regulation and when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment over a 30-year analysis period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry on the basis of expected 

future cash flows), cash flows by year, changes in revenue and income, and other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on 

different types of manufacturers, paying particular attention to impacts on small 

manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer 

employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in 

plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative 

impacts of different DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 

manufacturers. For more details on the MIA, see section IV.G and chapter 12 of the 

SNOPR TSD.

For consumers, measures of economic impact include the changes in life-cycle 

cost (LCC) and payback period for the product at each TSL. Under EPCA, the LCC is 

one of seven factors to be considered in determining economic justification. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) It is discussed in detail in the following section.
b. Life-Cycle Cost

The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of product (including any installation) 

and the operating expense (including energy and maintenance expenditures), discounted 

over the lifetime of the product.

In this rulemaking, DOE calculated both LCC and LCC savings for various power 

consumption levels in standby and off modes. DOE established the variability and 

uncertainty in energy use by defining the uncertainty and variability in the standby and 

off modes (hours per day) of the product. The variability in energy prices was

characterized by use of regional energy prices. To account for uncertainty and variability 

in other inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE used a distribution of 

values with probabilities attached to each value. For each consumer with a microwave 

oven, DOE sampled the values of those inputs from the probability distributions.

DOE’s analysis produced a range of LCCs. In addition to providing the average 

LCC savings or average payback for a standard, this approach enables DOE to identify 

the percentage of consumers achieving LCC savings or attaining certain payback values 

due to an energy conservation standard. DOE presents the LCC savings as a distribution, 

with a mean value and a range. In the analysis prepared for the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE assumed that consumers will purchase the product in 2012. For today’s SNOPR, 

that assumption has been changed to 2014, as this is the expected first year of 

compliance. See section IV.D for more details on the LCC and PBP analysis.
c. Energy Savings

Significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for 

imposing an energy conservation standard. Additionally, EPCA requires DOE, in 

determining the economic justification of a proposed standard, to consider the total 

energy savings that are projected to result directly from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As noted in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used the NIA 

spreadsheet to estimate total energy savings attributable to the considered standard levels.

73 FR 62034, 62046 (Oct. 17, 2008). See section IV.E and chapter 10 of the SNOPR

TSD for more details on this analysis.

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Product

In preparing the NOPR, DOE considered whether the evaluated design options 

likely would lessen the utility or performance of the standby mode and off mode of 

microwave ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

determined that none of the considered TSLs would reduce the utility or performance of 

microwave ovens; all consumer utility features that affect standby power, such as a clock 

display and a cooking sensor, would be retained. 73 FR 62034, 62047 (Oct. 17, 2008).

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition likely to result from 

standards. It directs the Attorney General of the United States (Attorney General) to 

determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of 
the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of 

the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)). DOE received the Attorney 

General’s determination, dated December 16, 2008, on standards proposed in the October 

2008 NOPR. The Attorney General’s determination for October 2008 NOPR did not 

mention microwave oven standards. (DOJ, No. 53 at pp. 1–2). DOE has transmitted a 

copy of today’s proposed rule to the Attorney General and has requested that the 

Department of Justice provide its determination on this issue.

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

The non-monetary benefits of proposed standards are likely to be reflected in 

improvements to the reliability of the Nation’s energy system—namely, reductions in the 

demand for energy will result in reduced costs for maintaining reliability of the Nation’s 

electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how standards may 

impact the Nation’s needed power generation capacity. This analysis captures the effects 

of efficiency improvements on electricity consumption by the product that is the subject 

of this rulemaking.

Proposed standards also likely result in improvements to the environment. In 

quantifying those improvements, DOE has calculated emission reductions based on the 

estimated level of power generation displaced by each TSL for microwave oven standby 

power. DOE reports the environmental effects from the proposed standards in an 

environmental assessment in chapter 15 of the SNOPR TSD. (42. U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a)) See section IV.J for more details on this analysis.
g. Other Factors 

The Secretary, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, may 

consider other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In considering amended standards for today’s supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking, the Secretary found no relevant factors other than those 

identified elsewhere in today’s SNOPR.

2. Rebuttable Presumption

As set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), there is a rebuttable presumption 

that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased installed 

cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the firstyear energy savings resulting from the standard. DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate 

values that calculate the payback period for consumers of products that meet potential 

energy conservation standards. Included is the 3-year payback period contemplated under 

the rebuttable presumption test. DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that 

considers the full range of impacts, however, including those to the consumer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). 

The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 

economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the 

results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). Section V.B.1.c of

today’s supplemental notice and chapter 8 of the SNOPR TSD address the calculation of 

rebuttable-presumption payback.
IV. Methodology and Revisions to the Analyses Employed in the October 2008 

Proposed Rule

In weighing the benefits and burdens of amended standards for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode energy use, DOE used economic models to estimate the 

impacts of each TSL. The life-cycle cost (LCC) spreadsheet calculates the LCC impacts

and payback periods for potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE used the 

engineering spreadsheet to develop the relationship between cost and efficiency and to 

calculate the simple payback period for purposes of addressing the rebuttable 

presumption that a standard with a payback period of less than 3 years is economically

justified. The NIA spreadsheet provides shipments forecasts and then calculates NES and 

NPV impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards. DOE also assessed 

manufacturer impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM).

Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on utilities and the environment. DOE used a version of the EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and environmental analyses. 

The EIA has developed the NEMS model, which simulates the energy economy of the 

United States, over several years primarily for the purpose of preparing the AEO. The 

NEMS produces forecasts for the United States energy situation that are available in the 

public domain. The version of NEMS used for appliance standards analysis is called 
NEMS-BT.15 The NEMS-BT offers a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards, 

because it accounts for the interactions among the various energy supply and demand 

sectors and the economy as a whole.

A. Product Classes

In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that affect consumer utility and efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q); 6316(a)) Different energy conservation standards may apply to different product 

classes. Id.

At the time of the October 2008 NOPR, DOE’s regulations codified at 10 CFR 

430.2 defined a microwave oven as a class of kitchen ranges and ovens which is a 

household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food 

by means of microwave energy. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE proposed a single 

product class for microwave ovens that would encompass microwave ovens with and 

without browning (thermal) elements, but would not include microwave ovens that 

incorporate convection systems. 73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008).

 

15 The EIA approves the use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code modifications and runs 

the model under various policy scenarios that deviate from AEO assumptions, the model used here has 

been named NEMS-BT. (“BT” stands for DOE’s Building Technologies Program.) For more information 

on NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 1998) 

(available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf). (Last accessed March 18, 2011.)

Deleted: DOE defines

Deleted: (10 CFR 430.2)
Whirlpool commented that DOE’s proposed definition of covered products 

creates a new product definition without proper engagement of interested parties by 

covering microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for surface 

browning of food. Whirlpool also commented that DOE stated combination microwave 

ovens, which were previously undefined, are not products covered by the microwave 

oven test procedure or standard. Whirlpool stated that DOE’s proposed definition of 

covered products is inconsistent with the regulatory definition of a microwave oven 

provided in 10 CFR part 430 because there is no mention of thermal elements designed 

for browning food, and furthermore is not clear and should be clarified. (Whirlpool, No. 

50 at pp. 1–2; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 29) GE also 

commented that DOE should clarify what products are considered covered products. GE 

stated that DOE should review data for different product types, and exclude those for 

which there is insufficient data to support DOE’s analysis. (GE, No. 48 at pp. 2–3)

As part of its microwave oven test procedure rulemaking, DOE reassessed what 

products would be considered microwave ovens under the regulatory definition, and 

whether multiple product classes would be appropriate. As discussed in the March 2011

TP Interim Final Rule, DOE amended the definition of microwave oven in 10 CFR 430.2 

to clarify that it includes microwave ovens with or without thermal elements designed for 

surface browning of food and combination ovens. DOE also discussed its determination

that all ovens equipped with microwave capability would be considered a covered 

product, regardless of which cooking mode (i.e., radiant heating or microwave energy) is 

primary. Based on its preliminary analysis, DOE concluded that the general standby

Deleted: stated

Deleted: products under the definition provided in 

10 CFR 430.2. In addition, DOE stated that 

combination microwave ovens 

Deleted: microwave ovens that incorporate 

convection features and possibly other means of 

cooking) would also be considered covered products 

under the regulatory definition in 10 CFR 430.2 

because they are capable of cooking or 

Deleted: food by means of 

Deleted: . DOE stated,

Deleted: it believes
mode and off mode operation for microwave ovens that incorporate other means of 

cooking food does not differ from that of microwave-only units. As a result, DOE 

amended the microwave oven test procedure to require that the same standby mode and 

off mode testing methods be used for all microwave ovens. 76 FR 12825, 12828–30 

(Mar. 9, 2011).

In order to determine whether specific types of microwave ovens should be 

separated into different product classes, DOE investigated whether there are any 

performance related features that would justify the establishment of a separate energy 

conservation standard. As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE tested a sample of 

32 countertop microwave-only units and measured standby mode power ranging from 1.2 

W to 5.8 W. 73 FR 62034, 62042 (Oct. 17, 2008). None of these units was capable of 

operation in off mode, nor, as noted previously, is DOE aware of any other current 

microwave ovens capable of such operation. As discussed below in section IV.B, DOE 

noted that standby power consumption for microwave-only units largely depended on the 

presence of a cooking sensor, the display technology, the power supply and control 

board, and implementation of a power-down feature. With regards to display 

technologies, DOE noted that microwave-only units incorporated Light Emitting Diode 

(LED) displays, Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs), and Vacuum Fluorescent Displays 

(VFDs).

Based on comments received in response to the October 2008 NOPR (Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), No. 47 at p. 6; Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 1), 

Deleted: combination 

Deleted: and microwave ovens with thermal 

elements only
DOE conducted a survey of over-the-range microwave-only units available on the U.S. 

market. DOE determined that the display technologies used are similar to those used in 

countertop microwave-only units (i.e., LED displays, LCDs, and VFDs). DOE also 

conducted in-store standby mode testing on a limited sample of over-the-range 

microwave-only units which showed similar standby power consumption as countertop 

microwave-only units. For these reasons, DOE tentatively concludes that over-the-range 

microwave-only units would not warrant a separate product class. DOE understands that 

over-the-range microwave-only units may have additional components that are energized 

during active mode operation (i.e., exhaust fan motors). However, DOE’s testing showed 

that the presence of such features did not increase the standby power consumption to 

warrant establishing a separate product class.

DOE also conducted standby power testing on a sample of 13 representative 

combination microwave ovens, including 5 countertop combination microwave ovens, 6 

over-the-range combination microwave ovens, and 2 built-in combination microwave 

ovens. DOE’s testing showed that the countertop combination microwave ovens use 

similar display technologies as countertop microwave-only units (i.e., LED displays, 

LCDs, and VFDs), and had standby power consumption ranging from 1.2 W to 4.7 W, 

which is similar to the standby power consumption for countertop microwave-only units. 

As a result, DOE tentatively concludes that countertop combination microwave ovens 

would not warrant a product class separate from microwave-only ovens.
DOE’s testing of built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens 

showed that the standby power consumption for these products ranged from 4.1 W to 8.8 

W, which is higher than the standby power consumption for other microwave oven 

product types (i.e., countertop microwave-only, over-the-range microwave-only, and 

countertop combination microwave ovens). DOE’s reverse-engineering analysis suggests 

that the additional features in built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens

required to handle the thermal loads associated with their installation and to provide 

consumer utility, such as additional exhaust fan motors, convection fan motors and 

heaters, and additional lights, require a significant number of additional relays on the 

control board, and thus require a larger power supply for the control of such relays. While 

the relays themselves do not consume power in standby mode, they increase the total 

power supply requirements of the control board and thus increase the standby losses of 

the power supply. As a result, DOE believes that a separate product class should be 

established for built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens. DOE 

recognizes that built-in and over-the-range microwave-only units may similarly require 

some additional relays for exhaust fans and lights, and that countertop combination 

microwave ovens would require some additional relays for convection fans and heaters. 

However, DOE’s product testing and reverse-engineering analyses indicated that these 

product types use similar-sized power supplies as those found in countertop microwaveonly units, and as a result would not warrant a separate product class from countertop 

microwave-only units. Details of standby power testing for the determination of product 

classes is presented in chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD.
In summary, DOE proposes to establish the following two product classes for 

microwave ovens:

Table IV.1 Microwave Oven Product Classes

Product Class

1. Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens

2. Built-in and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens

DOE determined that separate product classes for the purposes of setting energy 

conservation standards addressing standby mode and off mode energy use are warranted 

on the basis of different standby power performance. DOE did not evaluate whether the 

same product class distinction would also be appropriate for any active mode energy use 

standards because DOE eliminated the regulatory provisions establishing the cooking 

efficiency test procedure for microwave ovens in the July 2010 TP Final Rule. 75 FR 

42579 (July 22, 2010). If DOE adopts amendments to the microwave oven test procedure 

to include provisions for measuring active mode cooking efficiency, DOE may reevaluate 

these product classes as part of a future microwave oven energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. At that time, DOE may consider dividing countertop combination 

microwave ovens and over-the-range/built-in microwave-only units into separate product 

classes to account for the energy performance of heating components other than the 

microwave portion.

B. Technology Assessment

Product teardowns performed by DOE for this and past rulemakings gave DOE an 

insight into the strategies a manufacturer could adopt to achieve higher energy 
conservation standards. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE asked stakeholders to provide 

data and information that would help DOE evaluate the utility provided by specific

features that contribute to microwave oven standby power. In addition, DOE conducted 

additional research on several microwave oven technologies that significantly affect 

standby power, including cooking sensors, display technologies, and control strategies 

and associated control boards. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that control

strategies are available that enable manufacturers to make design tradeoffs between 

incorporating features that consumer standby power (such as displays or cooking sensors)

and including a function to turn power off to those components during standby mode. 73 

FR 62034, 62052 (Oct. 17, 2008).

As discussed above, DOE believes that the standby power characteristics for 

countertop combination microwave ovens and over-the-range microwave-only units are 

similar to that of counter-top microwave-only units, and therefore, the same technology 

options would apply to these products. Additional testing on over-the range combination 

microwave ovens conducted by DOE also showed that standby power in these products 

depends largely on the same factors. The following sections discuss each of these 

technology options.

1. Cooking Sensors

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE reported that its teardown analysis had revealed 

one cooking sensor technology with no standby power consumption used in microwave 

ovens on the U.S. market: a piezoelectric steam sensor. DOE also found that infrared and 
weight sensors, which require little to no warm-up time or standby power, had been 

applied successfully in Japanese-market microwave ovens. Furthermore, DOE identified 

relative humidity sensors with no standby power consumption as a feasible microwave 

oven cooking sensor technology, but found no microwave ovens using these sensors at 

the time. Finally, DOE learned that a major microwave oven supplier to the U.S. market 

was preparing to introduce microwave ovens using a new type of absolute humidity 

sensor with no standby power requirement and no cost premium over that of a 

conventional absolute humidity sensor. 73 FR 62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 

requested input and data on the utility provided by specific microwave oven features, 

including in relevant part cooking sensors that do not require standby power. Id. at

62133.

AHAM agreed with DOE that some manufacturers in certain areas of the world 

have already started to incorporate some of the cooking sensor design options into 

microwave ovens. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 78–79) AHAM 

expressed two concerns about these sensors: that reliability and accuracy of the sensors 

have not been fully proved through testing, and that there is limited availability of those 

sensors to microwave oven manufacturers due to intellectual property protections. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 69–70) AHAM further requested 

that DOE provide data on the availability, reliability, and functionality of the cooking 

sensors that consume no standby power. AHAM stated that data collection for such 

sensors provides an additional rationale for postponing the rulemaking or not adopting a 

standby power standard for microwave ovens. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 5)
Whirlpool agreed with DOE that cooking sensors with no standby power 

consumption are becoming available, though experience with them is limited. According 

to Whirlpool, there is a lack of necessary data regarding reliability, accuracy and 

intellectual property status. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 7)

GE similarly commented that cooking sensors with no standby power 

consumption, while in limited use at that time, had not been fully tested and evaluated as 

appropriate alternatives. GE also requested that DOE provide data on the availability, 

reliability, and functionality of the sensors discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, relative 

to sensors currently in use. (GE, No. 48 at p. 3) GE also commented that absolute 

humidity sensors with standby power consumption offer greater resolution than relative 

humidity sensors with no standby power consumption and therefore offer consumer 

utility. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 74–75) Furthermore, GE 

suggested that some of the sensor technologies described in the October 2008 NOPR, 

such as infrared and weight sensors, are not feasible alternatives to the absolute humidity 

sensors used today. For instance, infrared sensors are easily fouled by contaminants and 

condensation. GE commented that DOE should provide further information about 

absolute humidity sensors with no standby power consumption and no cost premium over 

that of a conventional absolute humidity sensor. GE stated that it needed to review 

performance parameters and any associated intellectual property issues associated with 

these sensors. (GE, No. 48, pp. 3–4)
DOE requested comment on whether any intellectual property or patent 

infringement issues are associated with the cooking sensor technologies discussed above;

however, DOE did not receive any such data. In addition, DOE is not currently aware of 

any intellectual property or patent infringement issues for infrared sensors, weight 

sensors, piezoelectric sensors, or relative humidity sensors. With respect to the accuracy 

and reliability of low- and zero-standby power cooking sensors, DOE notes that a 

significant number of microwave oven models using the alternate cooking sensor 

technologies discussed above are available on the international market, and have been 

available for a number of years. As discussed above, DOE is also aware of one zerostandby power cooking sensor technology used in microwave ovens on the U.S. market. 

DOE is not aware of any data indicating that the reliability and accuracy associated with 

these low- and zero-standby power cooking sensors significantly differs from that of the 

absolute humidity sensors currently employed in microwave ovens on the U.S. market. 

DOE is also unaware of data showing that fouling of infrared cooking sensors, as 

commented by GE, would significantly differ from that of absolute humidity sensors, or 

data on the decreased accuracy due to fouling as compared to the fouling of absolute 

humidity sensors. DOE recognizes GE’s concern regarding the use of relative humidity 

sensors in microwave ovens. Because DOE is not aware of any relative humidity cooking 

sensors used in microwave ovens currently on the market, DOE is not aware of any data 

regarding the accuracy of these sensors for detecting the state of the cooking load to 

adjust the cooking time. However, DOE notes that multiple other cooking sensor 

technology options exist that have been employed in microwave ovens in place of an 

absolute humidity cooking sensor. For these reasons, DOE tentatively concludes that the 
low- and zero-standby-power cooking sensor technologies discussed above are viable 

design options, and has analyzed them for this SNOPR. DOE requests data and 

information on the accuracy and reliability of low- and zero-standby power cooking 

sensors as compared to absolute humidity cooking sensors currently used in microwave 

ovens on the U.S. market, and whether these technologies would affect how consumers 

use their microwave ovens or their satisfaction in using them due to any lessening of the 

utility or the performance of microwaves imposed by the standard. DOE also seeks 

information on the current commercial availability of this technology, the likelihood of 

future adoption, and the potential impact on the lessening of competition amongst 

manufacturers. DOE also continues to request comment on whether any intellectual 

property or patent infringement issues are associated with the cooking sensor 

technologies discussed above.

With respect to GE’s comment that DOE should provide further information on 

absolute humidity sensors with no standby power consumption and no cost premium over 

that of a conventional absolute humidity sensor, because DOE was made aware of this 

information during interviews with microwave oven manufacturers, DOE is unable to 

provide further information regarding this absolute humidity cooking sensor.

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated that due to the reduction in cooking time and 

thus energy consumption made possible by use of a cooking sensor, it is important to 

retain this feature in microwave ovens. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No 40.5 at 

pp.71–72) Also, EEI expressed concern about the recovery time of a cooking sensor after 

Deleted: welcomes

Comment [A6]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA. 
a full microwave oven power-down and the impacts on consumer utility of a slow 

recovery time (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 77–78) As discussed in 

the October 2008 NOPR, low- and zero-standby-power cooking sensor technologies 

require little to no warm-up time. 73 FR 62034, 62050–51 (Oct. 17, 2008). As a result, 

DOE believes that low- and zero-standby-power cooking sensor technologies can be used 

in microwave ovens without impacting consumer utility.

2. Display Technologies

DOE stated in the October 2008 NOPR that it would consider three display 

technologies for reducing microwave oven standby power consumption: LED displays, 

LCDs with and without backlighting, and VFDs. DOE stated that LED displays and 

LCDs consume less power than VFDs. DOE also stated that each identified display 

technology provides acceptable consumer utility, including brightness, viewing angle, 

and ability to display complex characters. 73 FR 62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 

requested input and data on the utility provided by specific microwave oven features, 

including, in relevant part, display technologies. Id. at 62133.

EEI commented that consumer utility is associated with an electronic display and 

timer rather than a mechanical timer. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 

63–64). As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, DOE was not aware of any microwave 

ovens currently available on the U.S. market using electromechanical controls (73 FR 

62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008)), and thus has considered only electronic controls 

(including displays) in determining standby power levels. In addition, DOE is not 
considering electromechanical controls as a design option to reduce standby power 

consumption.

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool suggested that not all microwave oven display 

technologies considered by DOE will maintain consumer utility in all applications. 

Whirlpool stated that limiting the information displayed and/or reducing the size of the 

clock reduces standby power consumption at the expense of consumer utility. AHAM 

and Whirlpool expressed concerns about the reliability of LED displays, particularly in 

over-the-range microwave oven applications. According to AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool,

for over-the-range microwave oven applications, VFDs are generally preferred over other 

display technologies such as backlit LCDs or LED displays, as VFDs: (1) have greater 

reliability when exposed to the higher heat encountered above a cooking surface; (2) 

allow a wider viewing angle and have greater visibility; and (3) are available in more 

sizes and colors as demanded by the consumers of higher-end products, also allowing a 

manufacturer to provide a “family look” to product suites. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 5;

AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 70–71; GE, No. 48 at p. 3; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No 40.5, p. 75; Whirlpool, No. 50 at pp. 6–7).

As discussed above, DOE’s research suggests that multiple over-the-range 

microwave ovens with low power displays, including the LED and LCD types, are 

currently available on the U.S. market. DOE has also found that manufacturer 

temperature ratings for the three types of displays are comparable. Furthermore, DOE has 

found that LED displays and LCDs in both countertop and over-the-range microwave 
ovens offer acceptable consumer utility features, including brightness, viewing angle, and 

ability to display complex characters. DOE found no microwave oven display 

technologies with intermittent backlighting or other features that impair consumer utility. 

As a result, DOE believes that LED displays and LCDs can be integrated into any 

countertop or over-the-range microwave oven, with proper heat shielding and without 

significant loss of consumer utility.

3. Power Supply and Control Boards

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE found several technologies available to increase 

power supply and control board efficiency that would reduce microwave oven standby 

power consumption. DOE found some microwave ovens on the U.S. market using 

switching power supplies with up to 75-percent conversion efficiencies and 0.2 W or less 

no-load standby losses, though these models came with a higher cost, higher part count, 

and greater complexity. DOE stated that switching power supplies are as yet unproven in 

long-term microwave oven applications, and the greater complexity of these power 

supplies may also lower overall reliability. DOE was also aware of high efficiency power 

supply and control board components that could be used to reduce standby power 

consumption, but these were not found on commercially available microwave ovens at 

the time. 73 FR 62034, 62051 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE requested comments on the ability of 

switching or similar modern power supplies to operate successfully inside a microwave 

oven and on the impacts of the efficiency of such power supplies on microwave oven 

standby power. Id. at 62133.
AHAM commented that switching power supplies can operate successfully in 

microwave ovens, but that associated reliability is still relatively unknown. (AHAM, No. 

47 at p. 6) Whirlpool cited limited data suggesting that the costs and potential reliability 

issues associated with switching power supplies do not support their economic viability. 

(Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) Nevertheless, Whirlpool stated that it sells products with 

switching power supplies outside of the U.S. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at pp. 81–82) DOE observes that switching power supplies are found in products

such as computers, battery chargers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers, suggesting that 

the reliability and durability of switching power supplies has been proven in residential 

appliance applications. DOE notes that microwave ovens incorporating switching power 

supplies have been available for multiple years and are still used, as evidenced by such 

power supplies being observed in DOE’s most recent test sample of combination 

microwave ovens. DOE is also unaware of data indicating that the reliability of switching 

power supplies is significantly worse than conventional linear power supplies over the 

lifetime of the product.

Whirlpool suggested that switching power supplies are modestly more efficient 

than conventional power supplies. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) Pacific Gas and Electric 

(PG&E) commented that switching power supplies can have efficiency exceeding 90 

percent and those in computers are routinely exceeding 95 percent. (PG&E, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 81) DOE believes that the application of power 

supplies is very different for computers and microwave ovens, and DOE research 

indicates that switching power supplies for appliance applications in sizes similar to those 
utilized in microwave ovens achieve no greater than 75-percent efficiency.

16

Furthermore, DOE notes that the most efficient power supplies available for consumer 

computer use typically do not exceed 92-percent efficiency.

17

AHAM expressed concern that electromechanical controls may be necessary in 

order to meet standby power requirements. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 

at p. 58) As discussed above, DOE is not aware of any microwave ovens currently on the 

market with electromechanical controls. As a result, DOE has considered only 

microwave ovens with electronic controls in determining standby power levels. DOE 

does not believe that electromechanical controls would be required to achieve any of the 

standby power levels presented in section IV.D.

4. Power-Down Options

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that control strategies are available 

that allowed microwave oven manufacturers to make design tradeoffs between 

incorporating power-consuming features such as displays or cooking sensors and 

including a function to cut power to those components during standby. DOE found that a 

large number of microwave ovens incorporating this automatic power-down feature were 

available in other markets such as Japan. 73 FR 62034, 62051–52 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE 

requested input and data on these control strategies as well as comments on the viability 

 

16 Information on the design and efficiency of switch mode power supplies can be found at 

http://www.powerint.com/en/applications/major-appliances.

17 Information can be found at http://www.plugloadsolutions.com/80PlusPowerSupplies.aspx
and cost of microwave oven control board circuitry that could accommodate transistors to 

switch off cooking sensors and displays. Id. at 62133.

AHAM commented that the industry lacks data on control board circuitry to allow 

for a function to cut off power during standby mode. According to AHAM, such features 

must be reliable in high-temperature environments. AHAM noted that DOE has allowed 

no time for manufacturers to evaluate the viability or feasibility of the proposed 

technologies. (AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3, 6) DOE research has not identified any technical 

barrier that would prevent microwave oven manufacturers from successfully integrating 

such control board circuitry with proper heat shielding and other design elements. DOE is 

also aware of similar automatic power-down control technologies incorporated in 

products such as clothes washers and clothes dryers, which utilize an additional 

transformerless power supply to provide just enough power to maintain the 

microcontroller chip while the unit is powered down, resulting in very low standby power 

levels. Therefore, DOE continues to believe that an automatic power-down feature is 

technically feasible in microwave applications.

AHAM commented that it is concerned with a reduction in consumer utility and 

how the consumer interfaces with the unit. AHAM added that evaluating the impacts on 

consumer utility will require substantial consumer research. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 6)

AHAM suggested that an indicator light may be desirable in a microwave oven with the 

automatic power-down feature to communicate the product’s status to the user. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 59) Whirlpool stated that an automatic power-
down feature in microwave ovens may cause consumer confusion and complaints and 

could require significant consumer education efforts. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 65–66) Whirlpool commented that control technologies are 

available to dim or turn off a display after a period of inactivity has elapsed but that 

Whirlpool does not currently incorporate such a technology into its products. (Whirlpool, 

No. 50 at p. 7) Whirlpool and ASAP both commented that there could be a variety of 

ways to implement a power-down feature, including consumer-activated or fuzzy logicbased power response. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 79; Whirlpool, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 80) DOE has considered consumer utility issues 

in the determination of the proposed standby mode and off mode energy conservation 

standards. (See section V.C of today’s supplemental notice and chapter 5 of the SNOPR 

TSD for additional discussion of this topic.) DOE welcomes further comments regarding 

consumer utility issues associated with each of the technology options, and in particular 

the low- and zero-standby power cooking sensors and display technologies, considered in 

this analysis.

The comment filed jointly (hereafter, the Joint Comment) by ASAP, American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, American Rivers, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 

Southern California Edison, and Earthjustice (EJ), stated that DOE should analyze useractivated controls to turn the display on and off, in addition to automatic power-down 

features. According to these commenters, a microwave oven equipped with such controls 

Deleted: a

Comment [A7]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA. 
would meet the EPCA definition of operating in standby or off mode, and would give 

consumers the ability to reduce energy use below the proposed standby power standard 

level. The Joint Comment asserted that this type of switch is similar to power switches 

found on many computers, copiers, printers, televisions, and other products sold outside 

of the U.S. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 10)

ASAP requested clarification whether an on/off switch, particularly a consumeractivated one, would be considered as a design option. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 66, 73–74) GE questioned whether a microwave oven would 

be in standby mode or off mode if the display is turned off. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 73)

Under the mode definitions adopted by the amended microwave oven test 

procedure (76 FR 12825, 12834–37 (Mar. 9, 2011)), a product for which an on/off switch 

has turned off the display would be considered to be in off mode, unless other energy 

consuming features associated with standby mode remain energized (i.e., features to 

facilitate the activation of other modes by remote switch, internal sensor, or timer; or 

continuous functions, including other information or status displays or sensor-based 

features). In the latter case, the microwave oven would remain in standby mode even with 

the display turned off.

DOE is not aware of any products incorporating a user-activated control to turn 

the display on or off. Further, DOE does not have information to evaluate how often 
consumers might make use of this feature. Therefore, at this time DOE is unable to 

analyze such a control as a design option. DOE agrees that such a feature, if provided, 

could result in decreased energy usage in standby mode or off mode, and remains open to 

consideration of such a design option in future rulemakings. DOE also notes that 

manufacturers would not be precluded from incorporating such a feature in their products

under the proposed standards.

C. Engineering Analysis

The purpose of the engineering analysis is to characterize the relationship 

between the energy use and the cost of standby mode features of microwave ovens. DOE 

used this standby power/cost relationship as input to the payback period, LCC, and NIA

analyses. The engineering analysis provides data that can be used to establish the 

manufacturer selling price of more efficient products. Those data include manufacturing 

costs and manufacturer markups.

DOE has identified three basic methods for generating manufacturing costs: (1) 

the design-option approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline 

model design options that will improve its efficiency (i.e., lower its energy use in standby 

mode and off mode); (2) the efficiency-level approach, which provides the incremental 

costs of moving to higher energy efficiency levels (in this case, levels of reduced standby 

power), without regard to the particular design option(s) used to achieve such increases; 

and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides “bottomup” manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of increased efficiency, 
based on detailed data on costs for parts and material, labor, shipping/packaging, and 

investment for models that operate at particular efficiency levels. DOE conducted the 

engineering analysis for this rulemaking using the efficiency-level approach. For this 

analysis, DOE relied on laboratory testing of representative microwave ovens. DOE 

supplemented the standby power data with data gained through reverse-engineering 

analysis and primary and secondary research, as appropriate. To identify microwave oven 

design options, DOE performed a reverse engineering analysis on a representative sample 

of microwave ovens. Details of the engineering analysis are in chapter 5 of the SNOPR 

TSD.

1. Energy Use Metric

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE explored whether it would be technically 

feasible to combine the existing measure of energy efficiency during the cooking cycle 

per use with standby mode and off mode energy use over time to form a single metric, as 

required by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE tentatively concluded that, 

although it may be mathematically possible to combine energy consumption into a single 

metric encompassing active, standby, and off modes, it is not technically feasible to do so 

due to the high variability in the cooking efficiency measurement based on the 

microwave oven test procedure at that time and because of the significant contribution of 

standby power to overall microwave oven energy use. Therefore, DOE proposed a 

separate metric to measure standby power as provided by EISA 2007. 73 FR 62034, 

62042–43 (Oct. 17, 2008).
ASAP, EEI, the Joint Comment, and Whirlpool agree with DOE’s determination 

that it is not technically feasible to integrate standby and off mode energy use into a 

single efficiency metric for microwave ovens. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at pp. 53; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 55; Joint Comment, No. 44 

at p. 10; Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 4; Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 

29) AHAM stated that an integrated energy descriptor, while technically feasible, is not 

practical. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 4; AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 27, 

54–55) ASAP questioned whether there was any legal prohibition on a prescriptive 

standard for microwave oven standby power, especially since DOE was at that time 

proposing a prescriptive standard for standing pilots in gas cooking products. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 64–65)

As noted previously, DOE eliminated the active mode cooking efficiency 

provisions in the July 2010 TP Final Rule after it determined that those provisions did not 

produce accurate and repeatable results. 75 FR 42579 (July 22, 2010). Therefore, the 

absence of active mode provisions results in a de facto separate energy use descriptor for 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use.

2. Standby Power Levels

DOE is considering standby mode and off mode standards based on a maximum 

average standby power, in W, for microwave ovens. For the reasons noted previously, the 

standards do not include off mode power. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE’s analysis 

estimated the incremental manufacturing cost for microwave ovens having standby power
consumption less than the baseline level of 4 W. For the purposes of that analysis, a 

baseline microwave oven was considered to incorporate an absolute humidity cooking 

sensor. To analyze the cost-energy use relationship for microwave oven standby power, 

DOE defined standby power levels expressed as a maximum average standby power in 

W. To analyze the impacts of standards, DOE defined the following four standby power 

levels for analysis: (1) the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) procurement 

efficiency recommendation; (2) the International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) 1-Watt Plan; 

(3) a standby power level as a gap-fill between the FEMP Procurement Efficiency 

Recommendation and IEA 1-Watt Plan; and (4) the current maximum microwave oven 

standby technology (max-tech; i.e., lowest standby power) that DOE believes is or could 

be commercially available when the energy conservation standards become effective, 

based on a review of microwave ovens currently on the market worldwide. Table IV.2

provides the microwave oven standby power levels and the reference source for each 

level that DOE analyzed for the October 2008 NOPR. For more details on the 

determination of standby power levels, see chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD.

Table IV.2 October 2008 NOPR Proposed Microwave Oven Standby Power Levels

Standby 

Power Level

(TSL) Source

Standby 

Power (W)

Baseline Baseline 4.0

1 FEMP Procurement Efficiency Recommendation 2.0

2 Gap Fill 1.5

3 IEA 1-Watt Program 1.0

4 Max Tech 0.02

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE requested comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the selection of microwave oven standby power levels for the 
engineering analysis. 73 FR 62034, 62133 (Oct. 17, 2008). As discussed in section V.A, 

due to the definition of only four standby power levels, a TSL was defined for each 

standby power level and thus standby power levels may also be referred to as TSLs.

AHAM commented that the microwave oven standby power TSLs are 

appropriate. In particular, AHAM asserted that much of the worldwide industry is 

moving towards the IEA 1-Watt Program, which corresponds to one of the TSLs. 

However, AHAM stated that DOE’s engineering analysis based on these TSLs is 

incomplete and inaccurate. For example, none of the 32 units tested by DOE were overthe-range units, whereas six of the 21 units in the AHAM sample were over-the-range

units. According to AHAM, it is important to include over-the-range microwave ovens in 

the analysis because most of these units likely include a VFD, which is the most reliable 

display type in high temperature conditions. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 3; AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 83)

As previously discussed, DOE research found that multiple over-the-range 

microwave ovens are currently available on the market that incorporate low-power 

display technologies, including LEDs and LCDs. DOE has also found that manufacturer 

temperature ratings for the three types of displays are comparable, and that LED displays 

and LCDs in both countertop and over-the-range microwave ovens offer acceptable 

consumer utility features, including brightness, viewing angle, and ability to display 

complex characters. Due to these findings, DOE believes that the TSLs and the 

associated analyses are still valid.
Additionally, AHAM stated that each microwave oven standby power TSL should 

be set in a way that allows manufacturers a variety of pathways to reduce standby power 

consumption to that level. While some manufacturers are already starting to incorporate 

some of the standby power consumption-reducing design options identified by DOE, 

little or no data is available on some of the design trade-offs and reliability. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 78–79) DOE believes that multiple pathways 

exist, based on the selection of the (1) display technology, (2) power supply/control 

boards, (3) cooking sensors, and (4) the possible incorporation of algorithms to 

automatically reduce standby power after a period of inactivity, as stated in the October 

2008 NOPR.

Whirlpool commented that it is unaware of technologies that would allow 

microwave ovens equipped with VFDs to meet the 1-W standby power consumption limit 

of TSL 3 while keeping the display energized during standby mode. (Whirlpool, No. 50 

at p. 7) GE stated that it has significant concerns about retaining all features associated 

with VFDs that impact consumer utility while reducing microwave oven standby power 

consumption to TSL 3. As a result, GE believes TSL 3 would reduce the utility or 

performance of microwave ovens. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 89) 

DOE has determined that microwave oven manufacturers can meet TSL 3 in microwave 

ovens with VFDs by incorporating an automatic power-down feature. In addition, DOE 

research suggests that LED displays and LCDs in both countertop and over-the-range 

microwave ovens offer acceptable consumer utility features, including brightness, 
viewing angle, and ability to display complex characters. Additional issues related to 

consumer utility are addressed in section V.C, which discusses the TSLs considered for 

proposed standby mode and off mode standards.

AHAM requested additional information about the functionality associated with 

the microwave oven max-tech level, including response time from power-down. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 84) EEI also requested information about the 

max-tech level, such as whether it has as many display features and includes all the 

features of the baseline model. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 84)

As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR, the max-tech microwave oven standby 

power level of 0.02 W corresponds to a unit equipped with a default automatic powerdown function that shuts off certain power-consuming components after a specified 

period of user inactivity. The standby power at max-tech was obtained from a microwave 

oven currently on the market in Korea which incorporates such a feature. 73 FR 62034, 

62045 (Oct. 17, 2008). Although DOE does not have operational information on this 

specific model, DOE has analyzed the components necessary to achieve an automatic 

power-down function, and does not believe such a feature would limit the selection of 

display technologies or other features that provide consumer utility. DOE analysis 

suggests that response times for startup will be short enough (less than 1 second) to be 

acceptable to consumers.
For the reasons discussed above in section IV.A, DOE also analyzed a separate 

product class for over-the-range combination microwave ovens. DOE’s analysis 

estimates the incremental manufacturing cost for built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens having standby power consumption less than the baseline value of 4.5

W. To determine that baseline level, DOE measured the standby power consumption of a 

representative sample of built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens

currently on the market. For the purpose of this standby power analysis, a baseline builtin/over-the-range combination microwave oven is considered to incorporate an absolute 

humidity cooking sensor. In order to analyze the cost-energy use relationship for this 

product class, DOE defined each standby power level as a maximum average standby 

power in watts.

To determine the maximum average standby power at each level, DOE reverseengineered a representative sample of built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens to analyze the various components that contribute to the standby power 

consumption of the unit. DOE also measured the standby power consumed by these 

components individually. In its analysis, DOE observed that the absolute humidity 

cooking sensor used in these combination microwave ovens on average consume 0.9 W 

of standby power. For Standby Power Level (SL) 1, DOE believes that standby power 

can be reduced by incorporating a zero-standby cooking sensor. For SL 2, DOE analyzed 

potential improvements to the power supply design. DOE noted that microwave ovens at 

the baseline standby energy use incorporate a linear power supply. DOE measured the 

standby power consumption of the power supply and found that the transformer used to 
step down the line input voltage contributes most significantly to the standby power 

consumption. DOE then performed a power budget analysis to determine the size of the 

transformer needed to operate a microwave at full load, and the results suggest that 

replacing the conventional linear power supply with a more efficient switch mode power 

supply will eliminate the need for a large transformer and effectively reduce the standby 

power associated with the power supply. DOE thus estimated the standby power for SL 2 

based on the improvement associated with changing from a conventional linear power 

supply with an efficiency of 55 percent to a switch mode power supply with an efficiency 

of 75 percent. DOE developed this estimate for the efficiency of a switch mode power 

supply based on research of such power supply designs for appliance applications.18 For 

SL 3, DOE analyzed the impact relays have in determining the size of a power supply. 

DOE compared the power budget of a control board with electromechanical relays to that 

with solid state relays, and observed that the power requirement of a control board, with 

similar input and load, is lower with solid state relays than with electromechanical relays. 

Therefore, DOE estimated the standby power at SL 3 based on design improvements 

associated with using more efficient components in a switch mode power supply that 

incorporates solid state relays. For SL 4, DOE analyzed an automatic function that turns 

off power to standby power consuming components after a certain period of inactivity 

and that uses a transformerless power supply to maintain the microcontroller chip while 

the microwave oven is not powered on. DOE estimated the standby power at SL 4 based 

on the standby power requirements of the controller microcontroller chip.

 

18 Information on the design and efficiency of switch mode power supplies can be found at 

http://www.powerint.com/en/applications/major-appliances.
Table IV.3 provides the proposed standby power levels for the two product 

classes considered for today’s SNOPR. Details of the engineering analysis are in chapter

5 of the SNOPR TSD.

Table IV.3 Proposed Microwave Oven Standby Power Levels

Standby Power Level

Standby Power (W)

Microwave-Only and 

Countertop Combination

Built-In and Over-theRange Combination

Baseline 4.0 4.5

1 2.0 3.7

2 1.5 2.7

3 1.0 2.2

4 0.02 0.04

3. Manufacturing Costs

In this rulemaking DOE estimates a manufacturing cost for microwave ovens at 

each standby power level. The manufacturing costs are the basis of inputs for other 

analyses, including the LCC, national impact, and GRIM analyses.

For microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use, DOE estimated a 

cost-energy use relationship (or “curve”) in the form of the incremental manufacturing

costs associated with incremental reductions in baseline standby power. In the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE determined that microwave oven standby power depends on, among 

other factors, the display technology used, the associated power supplies and controllers, 

and the presence or lack of a cooking sensor. From testing and reverse engineering, DOE 

observed correlations between (1) specific components and technologies, or combinations 

thereof, and (2) measured standby power. DOE obtained preliminary incremental 

manufacturing costs associated with standby power levels by considering combinations 
of those components as well as other technology options identified to reduce standby

power. In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE presented manufacturing cost estimates based 

on quotes obtained from suppliers, interviews with manufacturers, interviews with 

subject matter experts, research and literature review, and numerical modeling. 73 FR 

62034, 62055 (Oct. 17, 2008). They are shown in Table IV.4.

Table IV.4 October 2008 NOPR Proposed Microwave Oven Standby Power 

Incremental Manufacturing Costs

Standby Power Level Standby Power (W) Incremental Cost (2007$)

Baseline 4.0 NA

1 2.0 $0.30

2 1.5 $0.67

3 1.0 $1.47

4 0.02 $5.13

Based on DOE’s research, interviews with subject matter experts, and discussions 

with manufacturers, DOE believes that all consumer utility (display, cooking sensor, etc.) 

could be maintained by standby power consumption down to SL 3 (1.0 W). At the maxtech level, DOE would expect implementation of an automatic power-down feature that 

would, among other things, shut off the display after a period of inactivity, potentially

impacting consumer utility.

DOE observed several different cooking sensor technologies. Follow-on testing 

after the December 2007 public meeting showed that some sensors are zero-standby 

(relative humidity) cooking sensors. During the MIA interview for the NOPR, one

manufacturer indicated that its supplier of cooking sensors had developed zero-standby

absolute humidity cooking sensors that would have the same manufacturing cost as the
higher-standby power devices they would replace. Based on the number of available

approaches to zero-standby cooking sensors from which manufacturers can choose, DOE 

believes that all manufacturers can and likely will implement zero-standby cooking 

sensors by the effective date of standby mode and off mode energy conservation

standards, and maintain the consumer utility of a cooking sensor without affecting unit 

cost. DOE believes that a standard at standby power levels of 1 or 2 W would not affect

consumer utility, because all display types could continue to be used. At SL 3 for VFDs 

and SL 4 for all display technologies, DOE analysis suggests the need for a separate 

controller (automatic power-down) that automatically turns off all other powerconsuming components during standby mode. Such a feature would affect the consumer

utility of having a clock display only if the consumer could not opt out of auto powerdown.

DOE requested input and data from interested parties on the estimated 

incremental manufacturing costs, as well as the assumed approaches, to achieve each 

microwave oven standby power level. DOE also requested comment on whether any 

intellectual property or patent infringement issues are associated with the design options 

presented in the NOPR TSD to achieve each standby power level. 73 FR 62034, 62133

(Oct. 17, 2008).

AHAM questioned the source of the incremental cost data associated with each 

standby power level presented by DOE, since some microwave oven manufacturers 

cannot recall providing this information to DOE. AHAM commented on the need for 
incremental manufacturing costs to reflect both a one-time cost as well as the possibility 

of multiple paths to achieve each TSL. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at 

p. 87) GE commented that the cost associated with upgrading power supplies to reach 

TSL 3 is a question. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 75–76)

As described in chapter 5 of the TSD published with the October 2008 NOPR, 

DOE developed incremental cost estimates for each standby power level using the 

design-option approach. (One-time costs are evaluated as part of the MIA.) DOE 

estimated costs for each of the components and technologies based on quotes from 

component suppliers, interviews with manufacturers, interviews with subject matter 

experts, research and literature review, and numerical modeling. The incremental 

manufacturing costs for each standby power level were determined by considering 

different combinations of these components as well as other technology options identified 

to reduce standby power.

DOE is aware that manufacturers may employ a number of strategies to achieve 

the different standby power levels. The estimated manufacturing costs for each standby 

power level represent the approach DOE believes manufacturers would most likely use to 

achieve the standby power at each level. For each level, DOE assumed manufacturers 

would implement design options with the lowest associated manufacturing cost. If DOE 

determined there were multiple paths with similar costs to reach a certain level, it 

assumed manufacturers would be equally likely to choose either strategy.
Whirlpool commented that its market research suggests high costs associated with 

consumer education on proper operation of microwave ovens with automatic powerdown features. Whirlpool clarified that the marketing costs it submitted for the ANOPR 

did not include these costs, estimated at $10 million, including retailer training, point-ofpurchase material, product tags, telephone support, and possibly more. (Whirlpool, No. 

50 at p. 7) AHAM also commented that DOE did not complete a rigorous analysis on 

manufacturing costs. According to AHAM, DOE obtained component costs, but did not 

account for the cost implications on appliance manufacturers. AHAM stated that this 

includes variables such as component reliability and/or utility, both of which will impact 

manufacturer cost. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 6)

DOE considered any conversion costs associated with changes to consumer utility 

and reliability in the manufacturer impact analysis, discussed in section IV.G. However, 

as previously discussed, DOE found no reliability or consumer utility concerns with 

switching from VFD to LCD or LED displays. Through discussions with manufacturers 

and OEMs, DOE believes that zero-standby cooking sensors could be implemented with 

no effect on consumer utility or reliability. DOE is aware that an automatic power-down 

feature required at SL 3 for VFDs and at SL 4 for all display types could affect consumer 

utility, and considered these impacts in the selection of the proposed standards.

For the reasons described above, DOE believes the standby power levels and 

corresponding incremental manufacturing costs presented in the October 2008 NOPR 

remain fundamentally valid for the microwave-only and countertop combination 
microwave oven product class. DOE is unaware of any technologies that have become 

available since the publishing of the October 2008 NOPR that would alter the 

incremental cost for any standby power level. However, the costs presented in the

October 2008 NOPR are in 2008 dollars. DOE scaled these costs to 2010 dollars using 

the producer price index (PPI) to reflect more current values.19 The relevant PPI for 

microwave ovens is a subset of the household cooking appliance manufacturing industry, 

specifically for electric (including microwave) household ranges, ovens, surface cooking 

units, and equipment. Table IV.5 shows the revised incremental costs for each standby 

power level for Product Class 1, scaled to 2010 dollars.

Table IV.5 Microwave Oven Product Class 1 Standby Power Incremental 

Manufacturing Costs 

Standby Power Level Standby Power (W) Incremental Cost (2010$)

Baseline 4.0 NA

1 2.0 $0.27

2 1.5 $0.60

3 1.0 $1.31

4 0.02 $4.58

As discussed in section IV.A, for today’s SNOPR, DOE is proposing two product 

classes for microwave ovens. While the analysis presented in the October 2008 NOPR 

remains relevant for the microwave-only and countertop combination microwave oven 

product class, DOE conducted analyses on a test sample of 13 combination microwave 

ovens for this SNOPR to evaluate the built-in and over-the-range combination microwave 

oven product class. DOE again used the design-option approach to determine the 

 

19 Information on the PPI databases can be found at http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm. (Last accessed March 

18, 2011.)
incremental manufacturing costs of combination microwave ovens for each standby 

power level.

DOE estimated the incremental cost associated with reductions in baseline 

standby power of built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens. DOE 

performed engineering teardowns and control board cost analyses to determine the cost of 

the baseline control board used in these units. DOE estimated the cost associated with 

each standby power level by using quotes from various component suppliers to determine 

the cost of the components used in each design option.

For SL 1, DOE estimated that the manufacturing cost of a zero-standby cooking 

sensor would be the same as that of the cooking sensor with high standby power. To 

estimate the manufacturing cost for SL 2, DOE used reverse engineering to determine the 

cost of the components used in a design of a switch mode power supply capable of 

delivering the same output power as the baseline conventional linear power supply. In its 

analysis for the manufacturing cost of SL 3, DOE determined the cost of the components 

used to design a control board with a switch mode power supply and solid state relays 

capable of driving the same loads as the electromechanical relays. DOE estimated the 

manufacturing cost for SL 4 based on the cost of the components needed to design an 

automatic power-down function that uses a transformerless power supply.
The results of these new analyses are summarized in Table IV.6. For the detailed 

cost-energy use analysis, including descriptions of design options and design changes to 

meet standby power levels, see chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD.

Table IV.6 Microwave Oven Product Class 2 Standby Power Incremental 

Manufacturing Costs 

Standby 

Power Level Standby Power (W) Incremental Cost (2010$)

Baseline 4.5 NA

1 3.7 $0

2 2.7 $2.29

3 2.2 $9.44

4 0.04 $5.18

D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

In response to the requirements of section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts of possible amended 

energy conservation standards for consumers of microwave ovens having standby mode 

and off mode features. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE conducted the analyses using a 

spreadsheet model developed in Microsoft (MS) Excel for Windows 2007. (See chapter 8

of the SNOPR TSD.)

The LCC represents the total consumer expense over the life of a product, 

including purchase and installation expense and operating costs (energy expenditures, 

repair costs, and maintenance costs). The PBP is the number of years it would take for the 

consumer to recover the increased costs of a higher-efficiency product through energy 

savings. To calculate the LCC, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of 
purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product. DOE forecasts the change in 

LCC and the change in PBP associated with a given efficiency level relative to the basecase product efficiency. The base-case forecast reflects the market in the absence of 

amended mandatory energy conservation standards. As part of the LCC and PBP 

analyses, DOE develops data that it uses to establish product prices, annual energy 

consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount 

rates.

DOE developed a consumer sample for microwave ovens having standby mode 

and off mode features from EIA’s 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey 

(RECS). It used this sample to establish the variability and uncertainty in microwave 

oven electricity use. The variability in electricity pricing was characterized by 

incorporating regional energy prices. DOE calculated the LCC associated with a baseline 

microwave oven having standby mode and off mode features. To calculate the LCC 

savings and PBP associated with products that could meet potential amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE substituted the baseline unit with more efficient designs.

Table IV.7 summarizes the approaches and data DOE used to derive the inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations for the October 2008 NOPR, and the changes it made for 

today’s SNOPR. DOE did not introduce changes to the LCC and PBP analysis 

methodology described in the October 2008 NOPR. As the following sections discuss in 

more detail, however, DOE revised some of the inputs to the analysis. Chapter 8 of the 
SNOPR TSD contains a detailed discussion of the methodology utilized for the LCC and 

PBP analysis as well as the inputs developed for the analysis.

Table IV.7 Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions in LCC and PBP Analyses

Inputs October 2008 NOPR Changes for the SNOPR

Affecting Installed Costs

Product Cost Derived by multiplying 

manufacturer cost by 

manufacturer, distributor 

markups and sales tax.

Used experience curve fits to 

forecast a price scaling index to 

forecast product costs.

Affecting Operating Costs

Annual Energy 

Use

Annual energy use determined 

from the annual usage (average 

daily use cycles). 

No change.

Energy Prices Electricity: Updated using EIA’s 

2006 Form 861 data.

Variability: Regional energy 

prices determined for 13 regions

Electricity: Updated using 

EIA’s 2009 Form 861 data.

Variability: No change.

Energy Price 

Trends

Energy: Forecasts updated with 

EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 

2008 (AEO 2008). 

Reference Case, High Growth, 

and Low Growth forecasts 

updated with EIA’s AEO 2010

May Release. 

Repair and 

Maintenance Costs

Assumed no repair or 

maintenance costs.

No change.

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings

Product Lifetime Estimated using survey results 

from RECS (1990, 1993, 1997, 

2001, 2005) and the U.S. Census 

American Housing Survey 

(2005, 2007), along with historic 

data on appliance shipments.

No change.

Discount Rates Variability: Characterized using 

Weibull probability 

distributions.

No change.

Affecting Installed and Operating Costs

Effective Date of

New Standard

2012. 2014.
1. Product Costs

To calculate the product costs paid by microwave oven purchasers, DOE 

multiplied the manufacturing selling prices developed from the engineering analysis by 

the supply chain markups it developed (along with sales taxes). DOE used the same 

supply chain markups for today’s SNOPR that were developed for the October 2008 

NOPR. See chapter 6 of the SNOPR TSD for additional information. For the October 

2008 NOPR, DOE analyzed only countertop models of microwave ovens and considered 

installation costs to be zero. For today's SNOPR, DOE analyzed both countertop and 

over-the-range microwave ovens and considered installation costs to be zero.

On February 22, 2011, DOE published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider improving regulatory analysis by addressing 

equipment price trends. Consistent with the NODA, DOE examined historical producer 

price indices (PPI) for electric cooking equipment generally and microwave ovens 

specifically and found a consistent, long-term declining real price trend. Consistent with 

the method proposed in the NODA, DOE used experience curve fits to develop a price 

scaling index to forecast product costs for this rulemaking.

DOE also considered the public comments that were received in response to the 

NODA and refined its experience curve trend forecasting estimates. Many commenters 

were supportive of DOE moving from an assumption-based equipment price trend 

forecasting method to a data-driven methodology for forecasting price trends. Other 

commenters were skeptical that DOE could accurately forecast price trends given the 
many variables and factors that can complicate both the estimation and the interpretation 

of the numerical price trend results and the relationship between price and cost. DOE 

evaluated these concerns and determined that retaining the assumption-based approach of 

a constant real price trend was not consistent with the historical data for the products 

covered in this rule (though this scenario does represent a reasonable upper bound on the 

future equipment price trend). DOE also performed an initial evaluation of the possibility 

of other factors complicating the estimation of the long-term price trend, and developed a 

range of potential price trend values that was consistent with the available data and 

justified by the amount of data that was available to DOE at this time. DOE recognizes 

that its price trend forecasting methods are likely to be modified as more data and 

information becomes available to enhance the statistical certainty of the trend estimate 

and the completeness of the model. Additional data should enable an improved 

evaluation of the potential impacts of more of the factors that can influence equipment 

price trends over time. 

To evaluate the impact of the uncertainty of the price trend estimates, DOE 

performed price trend sensitivity calculations in the national impact analysis to examine 

the dependence of the analysis results on different analytical assumptions. DOE also 

included a constant real price trend assumption as a sensitivity scenario representing an 

upper bound on the forecast price trend. 

A more detailed discussion of DOE’s price trend modeling and calculations is

provided in appendix 8-E of the SNOPR TSD.
2. Annual Energy Consumption

DOE determined the annual energy consumption of the standby mode and off 

mode of microwave ovens by estimating the number of hours of operation throughout the 

year and assuming that the unit would be in standby mode or off mode the rest of the 

time. DOE estimated the number of operating hours relative to the baseline of 71 hours 

calculated in the NOPR. DOE subtracted the number of calculated operating hours from 

the total number of hours in a year and multiplied by the standby mode and off mode 

power usage to determine yearly standby mode and off mode energy consumption.

3. Energy Prices

DOE derived average electricity prices for 13 geographic areas consisting of the 

nine U.S. Census divisions, with four large States (New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. DOE estimated residential electricity prices for each of the 

13 geographic areas based on data from EIA Form 861, “Annual Electric Power Industry 

Report.” DOE calculated an average residential electricity price by first estimating an 

average residential price for each utility, and then calculating a regional average price by 

weighting each utility having customers in a region by the number of residential

customers served in that region. The calculations for today’s SNOPR used the most 

recent available data (2009).

To estimate trends in electricity prices for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used the 

price forecasts in EIA’s AEO 2008. To arrive at prices in future years, DOE multiplied 
the average prices described above by the forecast of annual average price changes in 

AEO 2008. For today’s supplemental notice, DOE updated its energy price forecasts 

using those in the AEO 2010 May Release. Because the AEO forecasts prices only to 

2035, DOE followed past guidelines that EIA provided to the Federal Energy 

Management Program and used the average rate of change during 2020–2035 to estimate 

price trends beyond 2035.

The spreadsheet tools used to conduct the LCC and PBP analysis allow users to 

select energy price forecasts for either the AEO’s High economic growth case or Low 

economic growth case to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP to different energy 

price forecasts.

DOE received comment regarding the inputs to the energy price forecasts. The 

Joint Comment recommended that DOE conduct a sensitivity analysis using a basket of 

other forecasts besides the AEO. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) As mentioned above, 

DOE considered price forecasts from the AEO’s High and Low economic growth cases

to estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and PBP results to different energy price forecasts. 

The alternative forecasts from the AEO provide a suitable range to examine the 

sensitivity of LCC and PBP results to different energy price forecasts.

The Joint Comment also stated that to realistically depict energy prices in the 

future, DOE must consider the impact of carbon control legislation, because such 

legislation is likely. It also noted that there are regional cap-and-trade programs in effect 
in the Northeast (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative [RGGI]) and the West (Western 

Climate Initiative [WCI]) that will affect the price of electricity, which was not yet 

reflected in the AEO energy price forecasts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 12) EJ stated 

that caps likely will be in place by the time new standards become effective, so DOE 

should increase its electricity prices to reflect the cost of complying with emission caps. 

(EJ, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at pp. 105–106)

In response, DOE believes that the shape of Federal carbon control legislation, 

and the ensuing cost to electricity generators of carbon mitigation, is too uncertain to 

incorporate into the energy price forecasts that DOE uses. The costs to electricity 

generators of carbon mitigation resulting from the regional programs are also uncertain 

over the forecast period for this rulemaking. That being said, EIA included the effect of 

the RGGI in its energy price forecasts for the AEO 2010 May Release. (WCI did not 

provide sufficient detail to EIA in order for them to model WCI’s impact on energy price 

forecasts.) Therefore, the energy price forecasts used in today’s supplemental notice 

include the impact of one of the two regional cap-and-trade programs in the United 

States.

4. Repair and Maintenance Costs

Repair costs are those associated with repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE did not include repair or 

maintenance costs in its analyses. DOE maintained the same approach for this SNOPR.
5. Product Lifetime

For the October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE used a variety of sources 

to establish low, average, and high estimates for product lifetime. The average 

microwave oven lifetime used was 9.3 years. DOE used a Weibull probability 

distribution to characterize microwave oven lifetime.

6. Discount Rates

In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates to estimate the present 

value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution of residential discount rates 

for microwave ovens. See chapter 8 in the SNOPR TSD for further details on the 

development of consumer discount rates.

To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis in the October 2008 

NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE identified all debt or asset classes that consumers 

might use to purchase household appliances, including household assets that might be 

affected indirectly. It estimated average percentage shares of the various debt or asset 

classes for the average U.S. household using data from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

“Survey of Consumer Finances” (SCF) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 

2007. Using the SCF and other sources, DOE then developed a distribution of rates for 

each type of debt and asset to represent the rates that may apply in the year in which new 

standards would take effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount 

rate drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all types of household 
debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.1 percent. DOE used the same 

approach for today’s supplemental notice.

7. Effective Date of New Standards

The effective date is the future date when parties subject to the requirements of a 

new energy conservation standard must begin compliance. For the NOPR, DOE assumed 

that any new standards adopted in this rulemaking would become effective in March 

2012, 3 years after the month when it expected the final rule would be published in the 

Federal Register. For today’s SNOPR, DOE expects that the final rule will be published 

in 2011, with new standards requiring compliance three years later. Thus, DOE 

calculated the LCC for appliance consumers as if they would purchase new products in 

2014.

8. Product Energy Efficiency in the Base Case

For the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE analyzes higher efficiency levels relative to 

a base case (i.e., the case without new energy conservation standards). However, some 

consumers may already purchase products having efficiencies greater than the baseline 

product levels. Thus, to accurately estimate the percentage of consumers that would be 

affected by a particular standard level, DOE estimates the distribution of product

efficiencies that consumers are expected to purchase under the base case. DOE refers to 

this distribution of product energy efficiencies as a base-case efficiency distribution. For 

the October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE used the current shares of available 

models at specific standby power levels to establish the base-case efficiency distributions.
Table IV.8 presents the market shares of the standby power levels in the base case for 

standby mode and off mode energy use of microwave ovens.

Table IV.8 Microwave Ovens: Base-Case Market Shares

Product Class 1 Product Class 2

Level

Standby

Power (W) 2005 Share 

(%)

Standby

Power (W)

2005 Share

(%)

Baseline 4.00 46.2 4.50 100.0

TSL1

*

2.00 34.6 3.70 0.0

TSL 2 1.50 19.2 2.70 0.0

TSL 3 1.00 0.0 2.20 0.0

TSL 4 0.02 0.0 0.04 0.0

*

TSL = Trial Standard Level

9. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis

The PBP is the amount of time (expressed in years) it takes the consumer to 

recover the additional installed cost of a more efficient product through operating cost 

savings, compared to the baseline product. The simple payback period does not account 

for changes in operating expenses over time or the time value of money. The inputs to the 

PBP calculation are the total installed cost of the product to the consumer for each 

efficiency level and the annual (first-year) operating expenditures for each efficiency 

level. For the October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, the PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that energy price trends and discount rates are 

not needed.
10. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Period

As noted above, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) establishes a 

rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 

“the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard,” as 

calculated under the test procedure in place for that standard. For each TSL, DOE 

determined the value of the first year’s energy savings by calculating the quantity of 

those savings in accordance with DOE’s test procedure, and multiplying that amount by 

the average energy price forecast for the year in which a new standard first would be 

effective—in this case, 2014.

DOE received comments addressing the topic of using a rebuttable-presumption 

payback period to establish the economic justification of an energy conservation 

standard. The Joint Comment and EJ stated that DOE’s view that it is necessary to 

consider a full range of impacts because the rebuttable presumption criterion is 

insufficient for determining economic justification does not reflect the extent to which the 

rebuttable-presumption analysis constrains DOE’s authority to reject standards based on 

economic impacts. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at appendix B, p. 1; EJ, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 130) The Joint Comment stated that in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), Congress erected a significant barrier to DOE’s rejection, on the basis 

of economic justifiability, of standard levels to which the rebuttable presumption applies. 

Further, EJ and the Joint Comment stated DOE’s preference to proceed under the seven-
factor test contained in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) is not pertinent. The Joint Comment 

agreed with DOE that analysis under the seven-factor test is necessary and typically has 

supported standards having paybacks longer than 3 years. However, the Joint Comment 

stated that DOE’s decision making must reflect the expressed intent of Congress that the 

highest standard level resulting in cost recovery within 3 years constitutes the 

presumptive lowest standard level that DOE must adopt. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at 

appendix B, pp. 1–2)

In response, when examining potential standard levels DOE considers both the 

rebuttable-presumption payback criteria, as well as a full analysis that includes all seven 

relevant statutory criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). DOE believes, however, that 

the commenters are misinterpreting the statutory provision in question. The Joint 

Comment and EJ state that DOE need not look beyond the results of the rebuttablepresumption analysis, but DOE believes that the statute contains no such restriction, and 

following this approach would potentially force the agency to ignore other relevant 

information that would bear on the selection of the most stringent standard level that 

meets all applicable statutory criteria. Similarly, DOE believes that the Joint Comment 

misreads the statute in calling for a level that meets the rebuttable-presumption test to 

serve as a minimum level when setting the final energy conservation standard. To do so 

would not only eliminate the “rebuttable” aspect of the presumption but also would lock 

in place a level that may not be economically justified based on a full review of statutory 

criteria. EPCA already obligates DOE to select the most stringent standard level that 

meets the applicable statutory criteria.
E. National Impact Analysis —National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis

1. General

DOE’s NIA assesses the national energy savings, as well as the national NPV, of 

total consumer costs and savings expected to result from new or amended standards at 

specific efficiency levels. DOE applied the NIA spreadsheet to calculate energy savings 

and NPV, using the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the 

LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the energy savings, energy cost savings, product costs, 

and NPV for the two product classes from 2014 to 2043. The forecasts provide annual 

and cumulative values for all four parameters. In addition, DOE incorporated into its NIA 

spreadsheet the capability to analyze sensitivity of the results to forecasted energy prices 

and product efficiency trends. Table IV.9 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to 

derive the inputs to the NES and NPV analyses for the October 2008 NOPR and the 

changes made in the analyses for today’s SNOPR. A discussion of the 2008 inputs and 

the changes follows. (See chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD for further details.)
Table IV.9 Approach and Data Used to Derive Inputs to the National Energy 

Savings and NPV Analyses

Inputs 2008 NOPR Description Changes for the SNOPR

Shipments Annual shipments from 

shipments model.

See Table IV.10

Compliance Date 

of Standard

2012. 2014.

Base-Case 

Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Shipment-weighted efficiency 

(SWEF) determined in 2005. 

SWEF held constant over 

forecast period. 

No change. 

Standards-Case 

Forecasted 

Efficiencies

Analyzed as one product class. 

Roll-up scenario used for 

determining SWEF in the year 

that standards become effective 

for each standards case. SWEF 

held constant over forecast 

period. 

Analyzed as two product 

classes. Roll-up scenario used 

for determining SWEF in the 

year that standards become 

effective for each standards 

case. SWEF held constant over 

forecast period.

Annual Energy 

Consumption per 

Unit

Annual weighted-average values 

as a function of SWEF. 

No change.

Total Installed 

Cost per Unit

Annual weighted-average values 

as a function of SWEF. 

Incorporated learning rate to 

forecast product prices.

Energy Cost per 

Unit

Annual weighted-average values 

as a function of the annual 

energy consumption per unit and 

energy (and water) prices. 

No change.

Repair Cost and 

Maintenance Cost 

per Unit

Incorporated changes in repair 

costs as a function of standby 

power.

No change.

Escalation of 

Energy Prices

AEO 2008 forecasts (to 2030);

extrapolated to 2042.

Updated to AEO 2010 May 

release forecasts (to 2035); 

extrapolated to 2043.

Energy Site-toSource ConversionConversion varies yearly and is 

generated by DOE/EIA’s NEMS 

program (a time-series 

conversion factor; includes 

electric generation, 

transmission, and distribution 

losses).

No change.

Discount Rate 3 and 7 percent real. No change.

Present Year Future expenses discounted to 

2007. 

Future expenses discounted to 

2011.
2. Shipments

The shipments portion of the NIA spreadsheet is a model that uses historical data 

as a basis for projecting future shipments of the products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. In projecting microwave oven shipments, DOE accounted for two market 

segments: (1) new construction; and (2) replacement of failed products. Because 

shipments for new construction and replacements were not enough to account for all 

product shipments, DOE developed another market segment to calibrate its shipments 

model. In addition to normal replacements, DOE’s shipments model also assumed that a 

small fraction of the stock would be replaced early. It also considered retired units not 

replaced. DOE used the non-replacement market segment to calibrate the shipments

model to historical shipments data.

To estimate the impacts of prospective standards on product shipments (i.e., to 

forecast standards-case shipments), DOE considered the combined effects of changes in 

purchase price, annual operating cost, and household income on the magnitude of 

shipments.

Table IV.10 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive the inputs to 

the shipments analysis for the October 2008 NOPR, and the changes it made for today’s 

SNOPR. The general approach for forecasting microwave shipments for today’s SNOPR 

remains unchanged from the NOPR.
Table IV.10 Approach and Data Used to Derive Inputs to the Shipments Analysis

Inputs 2008 NOPR Description Changes for the SNOPR

Number of Product

Classes

One product class. Market share 

data provided by AHAM.

Two product classes: (1) all 

microwave oven-only and 

countertop microwave ovencombination; (2) over-the-range 

microwave oven-combination. 

Market share data provided by

AHAM; 99% product class #1 

and 1% product class #2. 

Product class market shares held 

constant over forecast period.

New Construction 

Shipments

Housing forecasts updated with 

EIA AEO 2009 April release 

forecasts for the Reference case, 

High growth case, and Low 

growth case.

No change in approach. Housing 

forecasts updated with EIA 

AEO 2010 forecasts for the 

Reference case, High growth 

case, and Low growth case.

Replacements Determined by tracking total 

product stock by vintage and 

establishing the failure of the 

stock using retirement functions 

from the LCC and PBP analysis. 

Retirement functions revised to 

be based on Weibull lifetime 

distributions.

No change. 

Retired Units not 

Replaced (i.e., 

non-replacements)

Used to calibrate shipments 

model to historical shipments 

data.

No change.

Historical 

Shipments

Data sources include AHAM 

data submittal and Appliance 

magazine.

No change.

Purchase Price, 

Operating Cost, 

and Household 

Income Impacts 

due to Efficiency 

Standards

Developed “relative price” 

elasticity, which accounts for 

the purchase price and the 

present value of operating cost 

savings divided by household 

income. Used purchase price 

and efficiency data specific to 

residential refrigerators, clothes 

washers, and dishwashers 

between 1980 and 2002 to 

determine a “relative price” 

elasticity of demand of -0.34. 

No change.

Fuel Switching Not applicable. No change.
a. New Construction Shipments

To estimate shipments for new construction, DOE used forecasts of housing starts 

coupled with microwave oven saturation data. In other words, to forecast the shipments 

for new construction in any given year, DOE multiplied the housing forecast by the 

forecasted saturation of microwave ovens for new housing.

New housing comprises single- and multi-family units (also referred to as “new 

housing completions”) and mobile home placements. DOE forecasted new housing based 

on EIA’s AEO 2010 for 2005–2035. AEO 2010 provides three sets of forecasts: the 

Reference case, the High economic growth case, and the Low economic growth case. 

DOE used the forecasts from the Reference case for the NIA results reported in this 

notice. For the Reference case, the forecast shows a decline in housing completions from 

2.2 million in 2005 to 1.7 million by 2030. For 2035−2043, DOE froze completions at the 

level in 2035.

b. Replacements and Non-replacements

To determine shipments for the replacement market, DOE used an accounting 

method that tracks the total stock of units by vintage. DOE estimated a stock of 

microwave ovens by vintage by integrating historical shipments starting from 1972. Over 

time, some units are retired and removed from the stock, triggering the shipment of a 

replacement unit. Depending on the vintage, a certain percentage of each type of unit will 

fail and need to be replaced. To determine when a microwave oven fails, DOE used data 
from RECS and AHS to estimate a product survival function. This function was modeled 

as a Weibull distribution. Based on this method, the average calculated microwave oven

lifetime is 9.3 years. For a more complete discussion of microwave lifetimes, refer to 

section 8.2.3 of chapter 8 of the SNOPR TSD.

3. Purchase Price, Operating Cost, and Income Impacts

To estimate the combined effects of increases in product purchase price and 

decreases in product operating costs on microwave oven shipments, for the October 2008 

NOPR DOE used a literature review and a statistical analysis on a limited set of 

appliance price, efficiency, and shipments data. DOE used purchase price and efficiency 

data specific to microwave ovens between 1980 and 2002 to conduct regression analyses. 

DOE’s analysis suggested that the relative short-run price elasticity of demand is -0.34.

Because DOE’s forecast of shipments and national impacts attributable to 

standards spans more than 30 years, DOE also considered how the relative price elasticity 

is affected once a new standard takes effect. After the purchase price changes, price 

elasticity becomes more inelastic over the years until it reaches a terminal value. For the 

October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE incorporated a relative price elasticity 

change that resulted in a terminal value of approximately one-third of the short-run 

elasticity. In other words, DOE determined that consumer purchase decisions, in time, 

become less sensitive to the initial change in the product’s relative price.
4. Other Inputs

a. Forecasted Efficiencies

A key input to the calculations of NES and NPV are the energy efficiencies that 

DOE forecasts for the base case (without new standards). The forecasted efficiencies 

represent the annual shipment-weighted energy efficiency (SWEF) of the product under 

consideration during the forecast period (i.e., from the estimated effective date of a new 

standard to 30 years after that date). Because DOE had no data to reasonably estimate 

how microwave oven standby power levels might change during the next 30 years, it 

assumed that forecasted efficiencies will stay at the 2014 standby power levels until the 

end of the forecast period.

For its determination of the cases under alternative standard levels (“standards 

cases”), DOE used a “roll-up” scenario in the October 2008 NOPR to establish the SWEF 

for 2012. For today’s SNOPR, DOE established the SWEF for 2014 and assumed that 

product efficiencies in the base case that do not meet the standard level under 

consideration would roll-up to meet the new standard level. DOE assumed that all 

product efficiencies in the base case that were above the standard level under 

consideration would not be affected by the standard.

DOE made the same assumption regarding forecasted standards-case efficiencies 

as for the base case; namely, that efficiencies will remain at the 2014 standby power level 

until the end of the forecast period. By maintaining the same rate of increase for 

forecasted efficiencies in the standards case as in the base case (i.e., no change), DOE 
retained a constant efficiency difference between the two cases throughout the forecast 

period. Although the no-change trends may not reflect what would happen to base-case 

and standards-case product efficiencies in the future, DOE believes that maintaining a 

constant efficiency difference between the base case and each standards case provides a 

reasonable estimate of the impact that standards would have on product efficiency. It is 

more important to accurately estimate the efficiency difference between the standards 

case and base case than to accurately estimate the actual product efficiencies in the 

standards and base cases. DOE retained the approach used in the October 2008 NOPR for 

today’s SNOPR. Because the effective date of the standard is now assumed to be 2014, 

DOE applied the “roll-up” scenario in the year 2014 to establish the SWEF for each 

standards case.

b. Annual Energy Consumption

The annual energy consumption per unit depends directly on product efficiency. 

For the October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE used the SWEFs associated with 

the base case and each standards case, in combination with the annual energy use data, to 

estimate the shipment-weighted average annual per-unit energy consumption under the 

base case and standards cases. The national energy consumption is the product of the 

annual energy consumption per unit and the number of units of each vintage, which 

depends on shipments.

As noted above, DOE used a relative price elasticity to estimate standards-case 

shipments for microwave ovens. To avoid the inclusion of energy savings from any 
reduction in shipments attributable to a standard, DOE used the standards-case shipments 

projection and the standards-case stock to calculate the annual energy consumption in the 

base case. For microwave ovens, DOE assumed that any drop in shipments caused by 

standards would result in the purchase of used machines. DOE retained the use of the 

base-case shipments to determine the annual energy consumption in the base case for 

today’s SNOPR.

c. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion

To estimate the national energy savings expected from appliance standards, DOE 

uses a multiplicative factor to convert site energy consumption (energy use at the location 

where the appliance is operated) into primary or source energy consumption (the energy 

required to deliver the site energy). For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used annual siteto-source conversion factors based on the version of NEMS that corresponds to AEO 

2008. For today’s SNOPR, DOE used AEO 2010. For electricity, the conversion factors 

vary over time because of projected changes in generation sources (i.e., the types of 

power plants projected to provide electricity to the country). Because the AEO does not 

provide energy forecasts beyond 2035, DOE used conversion factors that remain constant 

at the 2035 values throughout the rest of the forecast.

d. Total Installed Costs and Operating Costs

The increase in total annual installed cost is equal to the difference in the per-unit 

total installed cost between the base case and standards case, multiplied by the shipments 

forecasted in the standards case. 
In the NOPR analysis, DOE assumed that the manufacturer costs and retail prices 

of products meeting various efficiency levels remain fixed, in real terms, throughout the 

period of the analysis. As discussed in section IV.F.1, examination of historical price data 

for certain appliances that have been subject to energy conservation standards indicates 

that the assumption of constant real prices and costs may, in many cases, over-estimate 

long-term appliance price trends.

For the SNOPR, DOE applied a learning rate of 28.9 percent to forecast the prices 

of microwave ovens sold in each year in the forecast period (2014-2043). The learning 

rate expresses the change in price associated with a doubling in cumulative production. 

The price in each year is a function of the learning rate and the cumulative production of 

microwave ovens forecast in each year. DOE applied the same values to forecast prices 

for each product class at each considered efficiency level. Learning curve analysis 

characterizes the reduction in production cost mainly associated with labor-based 

performance improvement and higher investment in new capital equipment at the 

microeconomic level. Experience curve analysis tends to focus more on entire industries 

and aggregates over various casual factors at the macroeconomic level: “Experience 

curve” and “progress function” typically represent generalizations of the learning concept 

to encompass behavior of all inputs to production and cost (i.e., labor, capital, and 

materials).” The economic literature often uses these two terms interchangeably. The 

term “learning” is used here to broadly cover these general macroeconomic concepts. 

The "experience" curve developed for microwave ovens is based solely on shipments and 
PPI data specific to the United States. Because all microwave ovens are manufactured 

outside of the country, the changes observed in the PPI data are a result of efficiency 

gains realized in production outside of the country. In other words, "experience" is 

currently a dynamic of global production and distribution and is the cause for the changes 

observed in the PPI data..

To evaluate the impact of the uncertainty of the price trend estimates, DOE 

performed price trend sensitivity calculations to examine the dependence of the analysis 

results on different analytical assumptions. DOE considered four learning rate 

sensitivities: (1) a “high learning” rate (34.7 percent); (2) a “low learning” rate (21.3 

percent); (3) a “no learning” rate (constant real prices); and (4) a “microwave oven only” 

rate. The “microwave oven only” is based on limited set of historical price data 

specifically for microwave ovens, and the learning rate is 39.6 percent.

The annual operating cost savings per unit include changes in energy, repair, and 

maintenance costs. DOE forecasted energy prices for the October 2008 NOPR based on 

AEO 2008; it updated the forecasts for the SNOPR using data from AEO 2010. For the 

October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE assumed no increases in repair and 

maintenance costs for more efficient standby mode and off mode features of microwave 

ovens.

Comment [A8]: Change recommended by OIRA.
e. Discount Rates

DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. DOE estimated national impacts using both a 3-percent and a 7-

percent real discount rate, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 

analysis (OMB Circular A-4 (Sept.17, 2003), section E, “Identifying and Measuring 

Benefits and Costs”). The Joint Comment stated that DOE should use a 2-percent to 3-

percent real discount rate for national impact analyses. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) 

It noted that societal discount rates are the subject of extensive academic research, and 

the weight of academic opinion is that the appropriate societal discount rate is 3 percent

or less. It urged DOE to give primary weight to results based on the lower of the discount 

rates recommended by OMB.

In response, DOE notes that OMB Circular A-4 references an earlier Circular A94, which states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base case for 

regulatory analysis. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of 

return to private capital in the U.S. economy. It approximates the opportunity cost of 

capital, and, according to Circular A-94, it is the appropriate discount rate whenever the 

primary effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector. 

OMB later found that the average rate of return to capital remains near the 7-percent rate 

estimated in 1992. Circular A-4 also states that when regulation primarily and directly 

affects private consumption, a lower discount rate is appropriate. “The alternative most 

often used is sometimes called the social rate of time preference...the rate at which 
‘society’ discounts future consumption flows to their present value.” It suggests that the 

real rate of return on long-term government debt may provide a fair approximation of the 

social rate of time preference, and states that during the past 30 years, this rate has 

averaged around 3 percent in real terms on a pre-tax basis. It concludes that “for 

regulatory analysis, [agencies] should provide estimates of net benefits using both 3 

percent and 7 percent.” In accordance with the guidance from OMB Circular A-4 , DOE

did not give primary weight to results derived using a 3-percent discount rate.

5. Effects of Standards on Energy Prices

The Joint Comment stated that the proposed standard’s mitigation effects on 

electricity prices should be documented and the value of reduced electricity bills to all 

consumers quantified as a benefit. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 11) For the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE examined the impact of reduced energy demand associated with possible 

cooking products standards on prices of electricity. DOE found that reductions in 

electricity demand resulting from possible standards for cooking products would produce

no detectable change on the average user price of electricity in the United States. DOE 

concluded that microwave oven standby mode and off mode standards will not provide 

additional economic benefits resulting from lower energy prices. Thus, for today’s 

SNOPR DOE has made no change to its assumptions about the effects of microwave 

oven standards on energy prices. 
F. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE analyzed the potential effects of microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode standards on two subgroups: (1) low-income 

consumers, and (2) consumers living in senior-only households. DOE used the same 

approach for today’s SNOPR.

G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impact of standby mode and off 

mode energy conservation standards on microwave oven manufacturers, and to calculate 

the impact of such standards on domestic employment and manufacturing capacity. The 

MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the GRIM an industry-cash-flow model customized for this 

rulemaking. The GRIM inputs are data characterizing the industry cost structure, 

shipments, and revenues. The key output is the industry net present value. Different sets 

of assumptions (scenarios) will produce different results. The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses factors such as product characteristics, characteristics of particular firms, and 

market and product trends, and it also includes an assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers. DOE outlined its methodology for the MIA in the 

October 2008 NOPR. 73 FR 62034, 62075–81 (Oct. 17, 2008). The complete MIA is 

presented in chapter 12 of the SNOPR TSD.

For today’s SNOPR, DOE updated the MIA results based on several changes to 

other analyses that impact the MIA. DOE revised the analysis to account for the impacts 
on manufacturers resulting from standby mode and off mode standards for Product Class 

1 (Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens) and Product 

Class 2 (Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens). As discussed in 

section IV.C.3, based on the engineering analysis, DOE included updated manufacturer 

production costs (MPCs) for Product Class 1 and new MPCs for Product Class 2. For the 

SNOPR DOE updated its engineering analysis to 2010$ using the PPI. DOE also 

incorporated price trends into the analysis. Incorporating prices trends rather than 

assuming prices remain fixed in real terms throughout the analysis also impacts the MIA 

results. DOE used the default prices trends in the NIA starting in the base year of the 

analysis (2011) and continuing through the end of the analysis period (2043). DOE also 

assumed that MPCs and MSPs were similarly impacted by price trends in both the base 

case and standards cases. See section IV.D.1 for a description of how DOE implemented 

prices trends into the analysis.

The total shipments and efficiency distributions were updated using the new 

estimates outlined in the SNOPR NIA. The MIA also uses the new analysis period in the 

NIA (2013–2043) and has updated the base year to 2011. See section IV.E for a 

description of the changes to the NIA. 

To segment total product and capital conversion costs between Product Class 1 

and Product Class 2, DOE used the same split between these two product classes as used 

in the NIA. DOE used the same per-platform costs at each standby power level for both 

product classes, but converted these product and capital conversion costs to 2010$ using 
the PPI. As described below, DOE also updated the product conversion costs in response 

to comments from interested parties. 

As noted in section IV.C.2, Whirlpool commented that its market research 

suggests high costs associated with consumer education on proper operation of 

microwave ovens with automatic power-down features. Whirlpool clarified that the 

marketing costs it submitted for the ANOPR did not include these costs, estimated at $10 

million, including retailer training, point-of-purchase material, product tags, telephone 

support, and possibly more. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 7) AHAM also commented that 

DOE did not account for the all cost implications on appliance manufacturers, including 

variables such as component reliability and/or utility, both of which will impact 

manufacturer cost. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 6)

As part of the MIA conducted for the October 2008 NOPR, DOE considered 

product and capital conversion costs associated with the analyzed TSLs. Product 

conversion costs are one-time investments in research, development, testing, and 

marketing, focused on making product designs comply with new energy conservation 

standards. DOE investigated available product information to estimate the number of 

product platforms that would need to be updated at each TSL to determine conversion 

costs for the entire industry. DOE also used manufacturer interviews to verify the 

estimates used to determine product conversion costs. For each TSL, DOE assumed that 

most of the product conversion costs would be used for product development expenses. 

To account for the majority of the cost to upgrade the designs of product platforms that 
did not meet the standby power requirements at each TSL, DOE estimated a per-platform 

cost for engineering time, reliability testing, and product development that varied 

depending on the complexity of the design options. In response to Whirlpool’s comment, 

DOE notes that the normal product cycle of microwave ovens is less the 3-year period 

between the announcement and the compliance date of the final rule, and some of these 

marketing costs for rolling-out new products would have been incurred without 

standards. However, to conservatively account for any of these extraordinary marketing 

costs in that period, DOE also estimated for the SNOPR a per-platform cost where it 

analyzed a power-down design option to achieve the required standby power level. The 

marketing cost equaled half the estimated engineering expense per platform. Chapter 12

of the SNOPR TSD contains more detailed information on the product conversion costs 

for microwave oven manufacturers.

DOE also received a comment about the MIA results during the October 2008 

NOPR public meeting. In response to a discussion about different possible design paths 

that might be taken by manufacturers to reach higher efficiencies, LG questioned why the 

range of impacts on INPV was great if DOE had trouble contacting some overseas 

manufacturers. (LG, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 167-169)

Additional information and interviewing a greater number of manufacturers 

would not affect the range of INPV impacts shown in the NOPR. Rather, the range of 

potential impacts on microwave oven manufacturers in the NOPR MIA analysis 

depended on two factors: the magnitude of the conversion costs and the ability of 
manufacturers to pass through the additional production costs to consumers at higher 

TSLs. The production cost at the max-tech standby power level (TSL 4) in the NOPR 

added $5.13 to the baseline MPC. If manufacturers could fully pass through these 

additional production costs to consumers for lower standby power, the additional cash 

flow from operations in the NOPR MIA analysis would still not be enough to overcome 

the substantial product and capital conversion costs, resulting in a loss of $35 million in 

INPV. If manufacturers could only pass through a portion of the increased production 

costs, the lower per-unit profit lowered cash flow from operations and resulted in a loss 

of $172 million in INPV. 73 FR 62034, 62096–99 (Oct. 17, 2008). Hence, feedback from 

manufacturers was valuable to determine the standby power conversion costs and to 

determine which scenarios were appropriate to calculate the potential impacts on INPV. 

H. Employment Impact Analysis

DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one factor in 

selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts include direct and indirect impacts. 

Direct employment impacts are changes in the number of employees for manufacturers of 

the products subject to standards, their suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA

addresses those impacts. Indirect employment impacts from standards consist of the jobs 

created or eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) reduced spending on energy by end users, (2) reduced 

spending on new energy supply by the utility industry, (3) increased consumer spending 

on the purchase of new products, and (4) the effects of those three factors throughout the 

economy.
One method for assessing the possible effects such shifts in economic activity 

may have on the demand for labor is to compare sectoral employment statistics 

developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). BLS regularly publishes its estimates 

of the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in different sectors of the 

economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere in the economy by that same economic 

activity. Data from BLS indicate that expenditures in the utility sector generally create 

fewer jobs (both directly and indirectly) than do expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.

20 There are many reasons for the differences, including wage differences and 

the fact that the utility sector is more capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than many 

other sectors. Energy conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 

bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to increased 

expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general effect of energy conservation

standards is to shift economic activity from a less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility 

sector) to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and manufacturing sectors). Thus, 

based on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net national employment will increase due to 

shifts in economic activity resulting from new standby mode and off mode standards for 

microwave ovens.

In developing the October 2008 NOPR and today’s SNOPR, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an input/output model of the U.S. economy called 

Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET). ImSET is a special-

 

20 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional InputOutput Modeling System (RIMS II),” Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992.
purpose version of the U.S. Benchmark National Input-Output (I-O) model designed to 

estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving technologies. The 

ImSET software includes a computer-based I-O model having structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among 187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, 

and residential building energy use.

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved in projecting employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the analysis.4 Because ImSET does not incorporate price 

changes, the employment effects predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job 

impacts over the long run for this rule. Because ImSET predicts small job impacts

resulting from this rule, regardless of these uncertainties, the actual job impacts are likely 

to be negligible in the overall economy. DOE may consider the use of other modeling 

approaches for examining long run employment impacts. DOE also notes that the 

employment impacts estimated with ImSET for the entire economy differ from the 

employment impacts in the microwaves manufacturing sector estimated using the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) in chapter 12 of the TSD. The 

methodologies used and the sectors analyzed in the ImSET and GRIM models are 

different. Please see chapter 13 of the TSD for additional details on the range of results 

generated from the ImSET model. 

EJ and the Joint Comment stated that DOE must consider its own projections that 

an increase in employment will result from the adoption of standards in weighing the 

Comment [A9]: Change recommended by OIRA. 
economic costs and benefits of more stringent energy conservation standards. (EJ 

Comment, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 186; Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 

13) As described above, when evaluating alternative standard levels DOE considers the 

indirect employment impacts estimated using ImSet. Direct employment impacts on the 

manufacturers that produce microwave ovens are analyzed in the MIA, as discussed in 

section IV.G. For today’s SNOPR, DOE made no change to its method for estimating 

employment impacts. EEI requested clarification on the methodology used to estimate the 

national employment impacts when the majority of microwave ovens are manufactured 

oversees. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript at p. 185) The employment impacts analysis 

considers only the indirect employment impacts expected to result from appliance 

standards. The employment impacts in the affected appliance manufacturing industry are 

assessed in the MIA. For the purposes of the employment impacts analysis described in 

this section, the location of the manufacturing facilities is not relevant. For further details, 

see chapter 13 of the SNOPR TSD.

I. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates the change in the forecasted power 

generation capacity for the Nation that would be expected to result from adoption of new 

or amended standards. The analysis determines the changes to electricity supply as a 

result of electricity consumption savings due to standards. For the October 2008 NOPR 

and today’s SNOPR, DOE used the NEMS-BT computer model to calculate these

changes. The analysis output provides a forecast for the needed generation capacities at 

each TSL. The estimated net benefit of a standard is the difference between the 
generation capacities forecasted by NEMS-BT and the AEO Reference case. DOE

obtained the energy savings inputs from the NIA. Those inputs reflect the effects of 

standby mode and off mode energy use reduction on electricity consumption of 

microwave ovens. Chapter 14 of the SNOPR TSD presents results of the utility impact

analysis.

J. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the requirements 

of DOE Order 451.1B: NEPA Compliance Program21, DOE has prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) of the impacts of the potential standards for microwave 

ovens in today’s proposed rule, which it has included as chapter 15 of the SNOPR TSD.

In the EA, DOE estimated the reduction in power sector emissions of CO2, NOX, 

and Hg using the NEMS–BT computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT is run similarly to 

the AEO NEMS, except that microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use is 

reduced by the amount of energy saved at each TSL. The inputs of national energy 

savings come from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the forecasted 

physical emissions. The net benefit of each TSL in today’s proposed rule is the difference 

between the forecasted emissions estimated by NEMS–BT at each TSL and the AEO 

2010 Reference case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed module that 

provides results with broad coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. 

 

21 Available online at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/Req-DOEDOEO4511B_062510.pdf.

Deleted: 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 

6316(a),
For today’s SNOPR, DOE used AEO 2010. For the final rule, DOE intends to revise the 

emissions analysis using the most current version of NEMS.

SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions cap and trading programs, and DOE has preliminarily 

determined that these programs create uncertainty about the standards’ impact on SO2

emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for affected 

EGUs in all 50 States and the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern 

States and D.C. are also limited under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 Fed. Reg. 

25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an allowance-based trading program that would 

gradually replace the Title IV program in those States and D.C. Although CAIR was

remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remained in 

effect temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earlier opinion in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule 

proposal, a replacement for CAIR (75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)); and on July 6, 2011 

EPA issued the final Transport Rule, entitled the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,. 76 FR 

48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). Because the version of NEMS-BT used for today’s SNOPR

assumes the implementation of CAIR, DOE has not been able to take into account the 

effects of the Transport Rule for this rulemaking.

22

 

22 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS-BT model will incorporate any changes necessitated by 

issuance of the Transport Rule.

Deleted: .

Deleted: has been

Deleted: remains

Deleted: proposed

Deleted: , which would limit emissions from 

EGUs in 32 States, potentially through the interstate 

trading of allowances, among other options. 

Deleted: ).
The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable permits. Under existing 

EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand caused by the imposition of an energy conservation standard could be 

used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any regulated EGU. However, if 

the standard resulted in a permanent increase in the quantity of unused emissions 

allowances, there would be an overall reduction in SO2 emissions from the standards. 

While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate effects of energy conservation

standards on SO2 emissions covered by the existing cap-and-trade system, the NEMS-BT 

modeling system that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently indicates that 

no physical reductions in power sector emissions would occur for SO2.

As discussed above, the version of NEMS-BT used for today’s SNOPR assumes

the implementation of CAIR, which established a cap on NOX emissions in 28 eastern 

States and the District of Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the energy conservation

standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use may have little or 

no physical effect on these emissions in those States covered by CAIR, for the same 

reasons that they may have little effect on SO2 emissions. The proposed standards would, 

however, reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. As a result, 

DOE used NEMS–BT to estimate NOX emission reductions from the standards that are 

considered in today’s SNOPR.

Deleted: , and under the Transport Rule if it is 

finalized

Deleted: A cap on NOX emissions, affecting 

electric generating units in the CAIR region, means

that

Deleted: the 28 eastern

Deleted: and the D.C. 

Deleted: or any States covered by the proposed 

Transport Rule if the Transport Rule if finalized

Deleted: forecast

Comment [A10]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR). 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and existing coal-fired power plants in all States by 2010. 

However, on February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in New Jersey v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, in which it vacated CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). EPA has decided to develop emissions standards for power plants under the Clean 

Air Act (Section 112), consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion on CAMR. See 

http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/certpetition_withdrawal.pdf. Pending EPA's 

forthcoming revisions to the rule, DOE is excluding CAMR from its environmental 

analysis. In the absence of CAMR, a DOE standard likely would reduce Hg emissions, 

and DOE used NEMS-BT to estimate those emission reductions. However, DOE 

continues to review the impact of rules that reduce energy consumption on Hg emissions, 

and may revise its assessment of Hg emission reductions in future rulemakings.

K. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this proposed rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that are 

expected to result from each of the TSLs considered. In order to make this calculation 

similar to the calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period 

for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used for each of 

these emissions and presents the values considered in this rulemaking.
For today’s SNOPR, DOE is relying on a set of values for the SCC that was 

developed by an interagency process. A summary of the basis for those values is 

provided below, and a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as 

an appendix to chapter 16 of the SNOPR TSD.

1. Social Cost of Carbon

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted by law, “assess both the costs and the benefits of 

the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” The purpose of the SCC estimates 

presented here is to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, 

or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with 

an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear understanding 

that they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts.

As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on a regular basis to consider public comments, 

explore the technical literature in relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values 
using a defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model differences transparently 

and consistently inform the range of SCC estimates used in the rulemaking process.

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental 

increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited 

to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are 

provided in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.

When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of carbon dioxide 

emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious challenges. A recent report from the 

National Research Council23 points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information about (1) future emissions of greenhouse gases, (2) 

the effects of past and future emissions on the climate system, (3) the impact of changes 

in climate on the physical and biological environment, and (4) the translation of these 

environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to quantify and 

monetize the harms associated with climate change will raise serious questions of 

science, economics, and ethics and should be viewed as provisional.

 

23 National Research Council. “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and 

Use.” National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 2009.
Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, SCC estimates 

can be useful in estimating the social benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. 

Consistent with the directive quoted above, the purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to make it possible for agencies to incorporate the social benefits from reducing 

carbon dioxide emissions into cost-benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, 

or “marginal,” impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most Federal regulatory actions 

can be expected to have marginal impacts on global emissions.

For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from reduced (or costs 

from increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions in 

that year by the SCC value appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits 

can then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all affected years. This approach assumes that the 

marginal damages from increased emissions are constant for small departures from the 

baseline emissions path, an approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects 

on emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions. For 

policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on global cumulative emissions, there is 

a separate question of whether the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits 

of reduced emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does not 

attempt to answer that question here.

At the time of the preparation of this supplemental notice, the most recent 

interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO2
emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided. For emissions reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real 

terms over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range of values 

from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the global SCC to calculate 

domestic effects,24 although preference is given to consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions.

It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is committed to updating 

these estimates as the science and economic understanding of climate change and its 

impacts on society improves over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a 

preliminary goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as 

substantially updated models become available, and to continue to support research in 

this area. In the meantime, the interagency group will continue to explore the issues 

raised by this analysis and consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency 

process.

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide range of 

values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the 

model year 2011 CAFE final rule, the Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a 

“domestic” SCC value of $2 per ton of CO2 and a “global” SCC value of $33 per ton of 

 

24 It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values is approximate, provisional, and highly 

speculative. There is no a priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of net global 

damages over time.
CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 percent per 

year. It also included a sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. See Average Fuel 

Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 

(March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact Statement Corporate 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-

2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A domestic 

SCC value is meant to reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a 

unit change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages worldwide.

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per ton 

of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions (with a range of $0 to $14 for sensitivity 

analysis), also increasing at 2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-58 

(June 2008) (Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A regulation for 

packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE 

in October of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In addition, EPA’s 

2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Clean Air Act identified what it described as “very preliminary” SCC 

estimates subject to revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s global mean values 
were $68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount rates of approximately 2 percent and 3 

percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).

In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a preliminary assessment of 

how best to quantify the benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure 

consistency in how benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for the rulemaking 

process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from reduced CO2 emissions. The 

interagency group did not undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC 

estimates from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the preliminary assessment by the 

interagency group was a set of five interim values: global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 

2006$) of $55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. These interim values represent the 

first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. government to develop an SCC for use 

in regulatory analysis. The results of this preliminary effort were presented in several 

proposed and final rules and were offered for public comment in connection with 

proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules.

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a 

regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which were considered for this 

proposed rule. Specifically, the group considered public comments and further explored 
the technical literature in relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated 

assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and 

PAGE models.25 These models are frequently cited in the peer-reviewed literature and 

were used in the last assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each 

model was given equal weight in the SCC values that were developed.

Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of the interagency 

process was to enable a consistent exploration of the three models while respecting the 

different approaches to quantifying damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An 

extensive review of the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 

for these models: climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions trajectories, and 

discount rates. A probability distribution for climate sensitivity was specified as an input 

into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 

socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. All other model 

features were left unchanged, relying on the model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments.

The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. 

Three values are based on the average SCC from three integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents 

the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is 

 

25 The models are described in appendix 15-A of the SNOPR TSD.
included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further out 

in the tails of the SCC distribution. For emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in 

later years, these values grow in real terms over time, as depicted in Table IV.11.

Table IV.11 Social Cost of CO2, 2010–2050 (in 2007 dollars per metric ton)

Year

Discount Rate %

5 3 2.5 3

Average Average Average 95th Percentile

2010 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9

2015 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8

2020 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7

2025 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4

2030 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0

2035 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7

2040 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3

2045 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8

2050 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2

It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties remain, and that 

current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional and revisable since they will 

evolve with improved scientific and economic understanding. The interagency group also 

recognizes that the existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between the goal of 

producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from an incremental ton of 

carbon and the limits of existing efforts to model these effects. There are a number of 

concerns and problems that should be addressed by the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of the agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC.
DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the SCC used for 

cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S. Government intend to 

periodically review and reconsider those estimates to reflect increasing knowledge of the 

science and economics of climate impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for further 

research take on exceptional significance.

In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting from reduced 

CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values identified by the interagency process, 

adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2010$).26 To monetize the CO2 emissions reductions 

expected to result from amended standards for microwave ovens, DOE used the values 

identified in Table A1 of the “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866,” which is reprinted in appendix 16-A of the SNOPR TSD, 

appropriately escalated to 2010$. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 

values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.

Several parties provided comments regarding the economic valuation of CO2 for 

the October 2008 NOPR. Whirlpool does not support an attempt to value those emissions 

 

26 Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 using 

the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by the interagency group.
as part of this rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 8) DOE believes that, in keeping with

Executive Order 12866, placing an economic value on avoided CO2 emissions is 

necessary for a proper assessment of the costs and benefits of energy efficiency 

standards. For this SNOPR, DOE has updated its valuation of emission reductions based 

on the most recent recommendations from the interagency group. DOE has considered a 

wide range of values per ton of avoided CO2. As stated previously, the estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect increasing knowledge of 

the science and economics of climate impacts.

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced NOX emissions from 

the TSLs it considered. As noted above, new or amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States that are not affected by the CAIR. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the 

TSLs considered for today’s SNOPR based on environmental damage estimates found in 

the relevant scientific literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of 

monetary values, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary 

sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range of $450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$).27

In accordance with OMB guidance, DOE conducted two calculations of the monetary 

 

27 For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, Washington, D.C.
benefits derived using each of the economic values used for NOX, one using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent and the other using a real discount rate of 7 percent. 28

DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the appropriate range of 

values used in evaluating the potential economic benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE 

has decided to await further guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg 

emissions before it once again monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

L. Discussion of Other Comments

1. Off Mode Power Consumption

In the October 2008 NOPR, DOE determined that a microwave oven would be 

considered to be in off mode if it is plugged in to a main power source, is not being used 

for an active function such as cooking or defrosting, and is not consuming power for any 

standby mode function. 73 FR 62034, 62042 (Oct. 17, 2008). Hypothetically, a 

microwave with mechanical controls and no display or cooking sensor but that consumes

power for components such as a power supply when the unit is not activated would be 

considered to be in off mode. DOE believed no such microwave ovens were available on 

the market, and was unaware of any microwave ovens available that could operate in off 

mode. Therefore, DOE proposed no off-mode power consumption energy conservation 

standard. DOE requested input and data regarding off mode power for microwave ovens.

 

28 OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
Despite DOE’s test results indicating that no current microwave oven can operate 

in off mode, AHAM recommended that some level of power should be allowed in off 

mode for the following reasons:

1) Harmonization, particularly with Europe, who is implementing a 0.5 W 

standard on off mode in 2013;

2) Consistency in standby mode and off mode definitions among all NAECAcovered products;

3) Off mode and standby mode are linked, in that standby power requirements 

may result in previously unused features, such as a small LED indicating that 

power is running to the unit, but the unit is in standby mode; and

4) Power use and conversion concerns (i.e., harmonics29) may necessitate some 

protective capability, which falls into the definition of off mode.

AHAM urged DOE to consider adopting AHAM’s proposed clarifications and 

examples for off mode power included in Exhibit 1. These guidelines allow for a single 

definition to be used for all products. (AHAM, No. 47 at p. 5)

Whirlpool commented that the addition of off mode to the proposed rule is very 

important to assure that all power consumption is properly accounted for. (Whirlpool, 

No. 50 at p. 4)

 

29 Harmonics are waveforms of voltage or current that are multiples of the fundamental main power 

frequency. Harmonics can cause disruption to equipment connected to the main power and lead to 

component failures.
DOE generally agrees with the topics addressed in these comments. Consistency 

between covered products and international harmonization are important issues to be 

considered in energy conservation standards rulemakings, as is properly accounting for 

all power consumption. However, DOE received no comments indicating that any 

microwave ovens with off mode capability are currently available or expected to become 

available on the market. In the concurrent microwave oven test procedure rulemaking, 

DOE investigated the potential for microwave ovens with an on/off switch to operate in 

off mode. DOE determined that microwave ovens with such a configuration would be 

capable of operating in off mode, but that operation in off mode due to the activation of 

an on/off switch would be associated with zero energy consumption. Therefore, DOE 

continues to propose no standard for off mode power in microwave ovens because it 

believes there would be no benefit associated with such a standard.

2. Proposed Standards for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Use

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE made the preliminary determination that a 

maximum standby power standard of 1.0 W for microwave ovens is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 62034, 62120 (Oct. 17, 2008). DOE requested 

comments and views of interested parties on the proposed standards for microwave 

ovens. Id. at 62133.

EEI stated that the proposed standard of 1.0 W is too aggressive because typical 

microwave ovens have standby power consumption of 2 to 4 W. This power is used for 
functions that consumers find useful (such as clocks and cooking sensors). EEI noted that 

DOE should work with AHAM to set a different standard that does not compromise 

functionality. EEI suggested a standard of 2.0 to 3.0 W, which should provide more 

flexibility to manufacturers and provide national energy savings. (EEI, No. 56 at p. 2)

As discussed in the October 2008 NOPR and this SNOPR, DOE is aware of 

various strategies manufacturers could employ to reduce standby power consumption 

while maintaining consumer utility. DOE’s analysis in today’s SNOPR indicates that a 1-

W standard for microwave-only ovens and countertop combination microwave ovens 

would be technically feasible and economically justified. DOE is not proposing a 1-W 

standard for built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens because such a 

level was not found to be technically feasible while maintaining consumer utility (i.e., 

automatic power-down would be necessary to meet that standby power level).

The Joint Comment and ASAP support the proposed standard. According to the 

Joint Comment, the proposal is in keeping with national and international efforts to limit 

product standby power. (Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 10; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 32)

AHAM stated that it believes all the TSLs are appropriate, including the TSL on 

which the proposed standard is based. AHAM stated that much of the world is moving 

towards the IEA 1-Watt Program. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 83) 

Nevertheless, AHAM stated its opposition to the proposed standard, due in part to the 
lack of sufficient time for manufacturers to evaluate the viability or feasibility of the 

proposed technologies. AHAM proposed that DOE issue a “no standard” standard on 

microwave ovens or postpone the current rulemaking on microwave oven standby power 

until a robust test procedure is published and data are collected using the clarified test 

procedure to define potential standby power requirements. If the “no standard” standard 

is issued, standby power may be addressed during the next cooking products rulemaking 

or through negotiation. (AHAM, No. 47 at pp. 3–4) AHAM also commented that the 

proposed standard’s effective date of 2012 is inconsistent with the timing in the rest of 

the world. (AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 40.5 at p. 27) GE recommended that 

DOE should postpone the microwave oven standby power rulemaking until a robust test 

procedure is published or, in the alternative, issue a “no standard” standard on microwave 

ovens. GE further stated that it believes there are critical gaps in the engineering analysis 

used to justify the proposed standard. (GE, No. 48 at p. 2) GE commented that if the 

microwave oven standby and off mode rulemaking is not postponed, DOE should issue a 

"no standard" standard on microwave ovens. (GE, No. 48 at p. 2)

Whirlpool commented that it does not support the proposed standard. (Whirlpool, 

No. 50 at p. 1) Further, Whirlpool stated that DOE’s rulemaking timeline should take into 

account international changes in microwave oven standards. According to Whirlpool, any 

changes in U.S. policy that coincided with changes in policy around the world would be 

significantly advantageous to manufacturers. (Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

40.5 at p. 29)
Since the publication of the October 2008 NOPR, DOE has amended the 

microwave oven test procedure for microwave ovens to measure standby mode and off 

mode power consumption. These amendments appear in the March 2011 TP Interim 

Final Rule. 76 FR 12825 (Mar. 9, 2011). The amendments incorporate by reference 

certain provisions of IEC Standard 62301 First Edition, 2005-06, which is an 

international test procedure addressing standby mode and off mode power measurement. 

In addition, in order to ensure that the amended test procedure adequately addresses the 

EISA 2007 requirement to consider the most recent version of IEC Standard 62301 (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)), and recognizing that the IEC was expected to issue IEC 

Standard 62301 (Second Edition) in the same timeframe as DOE was planning to publish 

the amended test procedure, DOE issued the microwave oven test procedure on an 

interim final basis. The March 2011 TP Interim Final Rule offered a 180-day comment 

period, and to the extent necessary, DOE is considering appropriate adjustments based on 

comments received. Also since the publication of the October 2008 NOPR, DOE 

conducted further analyses in support of this energy conservation standards rulemaking, 

including the evaluation of combination microwave ovens.

In considering standards for today’s SNOPR, DOE is proposing two product 

classes for microwave ovens: 1) microwave-only ovens and countertop combination 

microwave ovens; and 2) built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens. 

DOE believes the analyses conducted for microwave ovens in the October 2008 NOPR 

remains valid for the microwave-only oven and countertop combination microwave oven 

product class. However, these analyses have been updated to reflect more current results, 
where applicable. DOE conducted additional analyses for the built-in and over-the-range 

combination microwave oven product class. The approach and results for proposed 

standard levels for today’s SNOPR are discussed in section IV.

3. Manufacturer Tax Credits Impact on Market Adoption of More Efficient Products

Whirlpool commented that the analysis cites dated studies which suggest that the 

consumer sees little economic benefit of manufacturer tax credits. Not covered in this 

analysis is that the tax credits provide manufacturers some of the cash flow necessary to 

invest in the development of ever more efficient products. Thus, the consumer sees 

significant benefit in the form of increasingly energy and water efficient products in the 

marketplace. (Whirlpool, No. 50 at p. 9)

As described in chapter 17 of the SNOPR TSD on the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA), DOE analyzed non-regulatory alternatives to minimum energy 

conservation standards, including manufacturer tax credits. The RIA assesses the national 

energy savings and economic impacts (i.e., NPV) of the non-regulatory alternatives 

relative to the national impacts from minimum energy conservation standards. In the case 

of manufacturer tax credits, DOE agrees that they provide manufacturers the financial 

means to develop and sell more efficient products and that the resulting consumer 

purchase price would be partially mitigated by the tax credits. However, DOE estimated 

that tax credits would be paid for by consumers in another form (such as additional 

taxes), and therefore did not include them as a consumer benefit for the purposes of 

calculating the national NPV. DOE did estimate that manufacturer tax credits will lead to 
an increase in the sales of more energy-efficient products. DOE determined, however,

that the rate of adoption of more efficient products due to manufacturer tax credits is not 

as great as that from mandatory minimum energy conservation standards. For more 

details on DOE's analysis of manufacturer tax credits and all non-regulatory alternatives, 

refer to chapter 17 of the SNOPR TSD.

V. Analytical Results

A. Trial Standard Levels

DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of a number of TSLs for the microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode energy use that are the subject of today’s proposed rule. 

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE based the TSLs on standby power levels explored in 

the November 2007 ANOPR, and selected the TSLs on consideration of economic factors 

and current market conditions. As discussed previously in section IV, given the small 

number of standby power levels analyzed, DOE maintained all four of the standby power 

levels to consider as TSLs.

Table V.1 shows the TSLs for microwave oven standby mode and off mode 

energy use. In all, DOE has considered four TSLs. TSL 1 corresponds to the first 

candidate standard level from each product class and represents the standby power level 

for each class with the least significant design change. TSL 4 corresponds to the maxtech efficiency levels. TSLs 2 and 3 are intermediate levels between TSL 1 and TSL 4.
Table V.1 Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode

Energy Use

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Standby Power (W)

Product Class 1: Microwave-Only 

and Countertop Combination

Product Class 2: Built-In and 

Over-the-Range Combination

TSL 1 2.00 3.70

TSL 2 1.50 2.70

TSL 3 1.00 2.20

TSL 4 0.02 0.04

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

To evaluate the net economic impact of standards on consumers, DOE conducted 

LCC and PBP analyses for each TSL. In general, a higher-efficiency product would 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) annual operating expense would decrease; and (2) 

purchase price would increase. Section IV.D of this notice discusses the inputs DOE used 

for calculating the LCC and PBP.

The key outputs of the LCC analysis are a mean LCC savings relative to the 

baseline product design, as well as a probability distribution or likelihood of LCC 

reduction or increase, for each TSL and product class. The LCC analysis also estimates 

the fraction of consumers for which the LCC will decrease (net benefit), increase (net 

cost), or exhibit no change (no impact) relative to the base-case product forecast. No 

impacts occur when the product efficiencies of the base-case forecast already equal or 

exceed the efficiency at a given TSL.
Table V.2 and Table V.3 show the LCC and PBP results for both microwave oven 

product classes. Note that for built-in and over-the-range combination microwave ovens, 

100 percent of consumers of such products in 2014 are assumed to be using a 

combination microwave oven in the base case. Any decrease in standby power would 

affect 100 percent of the market.

Table V.2 Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens: 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results

TSL

Standby 

Power 

(W)

Life-Cycle Cost ($) Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Average 

Installed 

Price

Average 

Operating 

Cost

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings $

% Households with

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 4.00 $223 $31 $254 NA 0% 100% 0% NA

1 2.00 $224 $15 $239 $7 0% 54% 46% 0.2

2 1.50 $224 $12 $236 $10 0% 19% 81% 0.4

3 1.00 $225 $8 $233 $13 0% 0% 100% 1.1

4 0.02 $230 $0 $230 $15 0% 0% 100% 2.4

Table V.3 Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens: Life-Cycle 

Cost and Payback Period Results

TSL

Standby 

Power 

(W)

Life-Cycle Cost ($) Life-Cycle Cost Savings

Payback 

Period 

(years)

Average 

Installed 

Price

Average 

Operating 

Cost

Average 

LCC

Average 

Savings

% Households with

Median

Net

Cost

No 

Impact

Net 

Benefit

Baseline 4.50 $482 $35 $517 NA 0% 100% 0% NA

1 3.70 $482 $29 $511 $6 0% 0% 100% 0.0

2 2.70 $486 $21 $506 $11 0% 0% 100% 1.9

3 2.20 $496 $17 $513 $4 21% 0% 79% 6.3

4 0.04 $490 $0 $490 $27 0% 0% 100% 1.8
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE determined the impact of the standards 

on the following microwave oven consumer subgroups: senior-only households and lowincome households. Table V.4 and Table V.5 compare the average LCC savings for 

senior-only households and low-income households with those for all households. The 

LCC impacts for senior-only and low-income households are essentially the same as they 

are for the general population.

Table V.4 Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop Combination Microwave Ovens: 

Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households

TSL

Standby 

Power (W)

Senior-Only 

Households

Low-Income 

Households All Households

1 2.00 $7 $7 $7

2 1.50 $10 $10 $10

3 1.00 $12 $12 $13

4 0.02 $15 $15 $15

Table V.5 Built-In and Over-the-Range Combination Microwave Ovens: 

Comparison of Average LCC Savings for Consumer Subgroups and All Households

TSL

Standby 

Power (W)

Senior-Only 

Households

Low-Income 

Households All Households

1 3.70 $6 $6 $6

2 2.70 $10 $10 $11

3 2.20 $4 $4 $4

4 0.04 $27 $27 $27

Deleted: 2.00

Deleted: 1.50

Deleted: 1.00

Deleted: 02
c. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback

As discussed above, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that, in essence,

an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased purchase cost 

for product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year 

energy savings resulting from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE 

calculated a rebuttable-presumption payback period for each TSL to determine whether 

DOE could presume that a standard at that level is economically justified. Table V.6

shows the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for the microwave oven standby mode 

and off mode TSLs. Because only a single, average value is necessary for establishing the 

rebuttable-presumption payback period, rather than using distributions for input values, 

DOE used discrete values. As required by EPCA, DOE based the calculation on the 

assumptions in the DOE test procedures for microwave ovens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) As a result, DOE calculated a single rebuttable-presumption payback 

value, and not a distribution of payback periods, for each TSL.

Table V.6 Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods for Microwave Oven Standby 

Mode and Off Mode

TSL

Payback Period (years)

Microwave-Only Ovens and 

Countertop Combination Ovens

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Combination Microwave Ovens

1 0.2 0.0

2 0.3 1.8

3 0.6 5.6

4 1.6 1.6

With the exception of TSL 3 for built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens, all the TSLs in the above tables have rebuttable-presumption payback 

Deleted: Table V.6
periods of less than 3 years. DOE believes that the rebuttable-presumption payback 

period criterion (i.e., a limited payback period) is not sufficient for determining economic 

justification. Therefore, DOE has considered a full range of impacts, including those to 

consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment. Section IV.D provides a

complete discussion of how DOE considered the range of impacts to select its proposed 

standards.

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

For the October 2008 NOPR, DOE used INPV to compare the financial impacts 

of different TSLs on microwave oven manufacturers. 73 FR 62034, 62096–99 (Oct. 17, 

2008). The INPV is the sum of all net cash flows discounted by the industry’s cost of 

capital (discount rate). DOE used the GRIM to compare the INPV of the base case (no 

new energy conservation standards) to that of each TSL for the microwave oven industry. 

To evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the microwave oven industry, DOE 

constructed different scenarios using different markups that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses. Each scenario results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry value at each TSL. These steps allowed DOE to compare the 

potential impacts on the industry as a function of TSLs in the GRIM. The difference in 

INPV between the base case and the standards case is an estimate of the economic 

impacts that implementing that standard level would have on the entire industry. For 

today’s supplemental notice, DOE continues to use the above methodology and presents 

the results in the subsequent sections. See chapter 12 for additional information on MIA 

methodology and results.
a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

To assess the lower end of the range of potential impacts for the microwave oven 

industry, DOE considered the scenario reflecting the preservation of gross margin 

percentage. As production cost increases with efficiency, this scenario implies 

manufacturers will be able to maintain gross margins as a percentage of revenues. To 

assess the higher end of the range of potential impacts for the microwave oven industry, 

DOE considered the scenario reflecting preservation of gross margin in absolute dollars. 

Under this scenario, DOE assumed that the industry can maintain its gross margin in 

absolute dollars after the compliance date of the energy conservation standard. The 

industry would do so by lowering their gross margin as a percentage of revenue so that 

the gross margin in absolute dollars does not increase above the base-case gross margin. 

Table V.7 through Table V.12 show MIA results for standby mode and off mode energy 

conservation standards using both markup scenarios described above for microwave oven 

manufacturers.
Table V.7 Product Class 1 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation of 

Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

TSL

1 2 3 4

Change in INPV 2010$ 

millions 1,103.4 1,076.6 1,058.6 1,050.6 1,013.9 

Change in INPV

2010$ 

millions - (26.8) (44.9) (52.8) (89.6)

% - (2.4) (4.1) (4.8) (8.1)

Product 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 39.2 70.5 89.1 172.3

Capital 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 3.9 4.3 4.7 7.8

Total Investment 

Required

2010$ 

millions - 43.1 74.8 93.8 180.1

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

Table V.8 Product Class 1 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation of 

Gross Margin in Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

TSL

1 2 3 4

Change in INPV 2010$ 

millions 1,103.4 1,074.4 1,051.8 1,031.6 939.5 

Change in INPV

2010$ 

millions - (29.0) (51.7) (71.9) (163.9)

% - (2.6) (4.7) (6.5) (14.9)

Product 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 39.2 70.5 89.1 172.3

Capital 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 3.9 4.3 4.7 7.8

Total Investment 

Required

2010$ 

millions - 43.1 74.8 93.8 180.1

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
Table V.9 Product Class 2 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation of 

Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

TSL

1 2 3 4

Change in INPV 2010$ 

millions 24.0 23.8 23.7 23.9 23.2 

Change in INPV

2010$ 

millions - (0.3) (0.4) (0.1) (0.9)

% - (1.2) (1.5) (0.3) (3.6)

Product 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.7

Capital 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Total Investment 

Required*

2010$ 

millions - 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.8

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due 

to the rounding to one decimal place.

Table V.10 Product Class 2 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation 

of Gross Margin in Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

TSL

1 2 3 4

Change in INPV 2010$ 

millions 24.0 23.8 23.3 22.3 22.3 

Change in INPV

2010$ 

millions - (0.3) (0.8) (1.7) (1.8)

% - (1.2) (3.1) (7.1) (7.3)

Product 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.7

Capital 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Total Investment 

Required*

2010$

millions - 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.8

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due 

to the rounding to one decimal place.
Table V.11 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation of Gross Margin 

Percentage Markup Scenario for Product Class 1 and 2 Combined

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

TSL

1 2 3 4

Change in INPV 2010$ 

millions 1,127.5 1,100.4 1,082.2 1,074.5 1,037.0 

Change in INPV

2010$ 

millions - (27.1) (45.2) (52.9) (90.4)

% - (2.4) (4.0) (4.7) (8.0)

Product 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 39.6 71.2 90.0 174.0

Capital 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 4.0 4.4 4.7 7.9

Total Investment 

Required*

2010$ 

millions - 43.5 75.5 94.7 181.9

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due 

to the rounding to one decimal place.

Table V.12 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Under the Preservation of Gross Margin 

in Absolute Dollars Markup Scenario for Product Class 1 and 2 Combined

Preservation of Gross Margin Percentage Markup Scenario

Units Base 

Case

TSL

1 2 3 4

Change in INPV 2010$ 

millions 1,127.5 1,098.2 1,075.0 1,053.9 961.8 

Change in INPV

2010$ 

millions - (29.3) (52.4) (73.6) (165.7)

% - (2.6) (4.6) (6.5) (14.7)

Product 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 39.6 71.2 90.0 174.0

Capital 

Conversion Costs

2010$ 

millions - 4.0 4.4 4.7 7.9

Total Investment 

Required*

2010$ 

millions - 43.5 75.5 94.7 181.9

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product conversion costs and capital conversion costs due 

to the rounding to one decimal place.

TSL 1 represents an improvement in standby power from the baseline level of 4.0 

W to 2.0 W for Product Class 1 and an improvement in standby power from the baseline 

level of 4.5 W to 3.7 W for Product Class 2. At TSL 1, the impact on INPV and cash flow 

varies depending on the manufacturers’ ability to pass on increases in MPCs to their 

customers. DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at TSL 1 to range -$27.1 million to -
$29.3 million, or a change in INPV of -2.4 percent to -2.6 percent. At this level, the 

industry cash flow decreases by approximately 14.0 percent, to $72.3 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $84.2 million in the year leading up to the standards.

TSL 2 represents an improvement in standby power from the baseline level of 4.0 

W to 1.5 W for Product Class 1 and an improvement in standby power from the baseline 

level of 4.5 W to 2.7 W for Product Class 2. At TSL 2, the impact on INPV and cash flow 

would be similar to TSL 1 and depend on whether manufacturers can fully recover the 

increases in MPCs from their customers. DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at TSL 2 to 

range from -$45.2 million to -$52.4 million, or a change in INPV of -4.0 percent to -4.6

percent. At this level, the industry cash flow decreases by approximately 24.0 percent, to 

$64.0 million, compared to the base-case value of $84.2 million in the year leading up to 

the standards.

TSL 3 represents an improvement in standby power from the baseline level of 4.0 

W to 1.0 W for Product Class 1 and an improvement in standby power from the baseline 

level of 4.5 W to 2.2 W for Product Class 2. At TSL 3, the impact on INPV and cash flow 

continues to vary depending on the manufacturers and their ability to pass on increases in 

MPCs to their customers. DOE estimated the impacts in INPV at TSL 3 to range from 

approximately -$52.9 million to -$73.6 million, or a change in INPV of -4.7 percent to -

6.5 percent. At this level, the industry cash flow decreases by approximately 29.9 percent, 

to $59.0 million, compared to the base-case value of $84.2 million in the year leading up 

to the standards.
TSL 4 represents an improvement in standby power from the baseline level of 4.0 

W to 0.02 W for Product Class 1 and an improvement in standby power from the baseline 

level of 4.5 W to 0.04 W for Product Class 2. At TSL 4, DOE estimated the impacts in 

INPV to range from approximately -$90.4 million to -$165.7 million, or a change in 

INPV of -8.0 percent to -14.7 percent. At this level, the industry cash flow decreases by 

approximately 57.3 percent, to $35.9 million, compared to the base-case value of $84.2

million in the year leading up to the standards. At higher TSLs, manufacturers have a 

harder time fully passing on larger increases in MPCs to their customers. At TSL 4, the 

conversion costs are higher than the other TSLs because the design of all microwave 

platforms must be more significantly altered.

For new standby mode and off mode energy conservation standards, conversion 

costs increase at higher TSLs as the complexity of further lowering standby power

increases, substantially driving up engineering time and also increasing the testing and 

product development time. If the increased production costs are fully passed on to 

consumers (the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario), the operating revenue 

from higher prices is still not enough to overcome the negative impacts from the 

substantial conversion costs. The incremental costs are small for each TSL, meaning the 

positive impact on cash flows is small compared to the conversion costs required to 

achieve these efficiencies. As a result of the small incremental costs and large conversion 

expenses, INPV is negative for all TSLs under the preservation of gross margin 

percentage scenario. If the incremental costs are not fully passed along to customers (the 
preservation of gross margin (absolute dollars) scenario), the negative impacts on INPV 

are amplified at each TSL.

b. Employment Impacts

DOE discussed the domestic employment impacts on the microwave oven 

industry in the October NOPR. DOE concluded that since more than 95 percent of 

microwave ovens are already imported and the employment impacts in the GRIM are 

small, the actual impacts on domestic employment would depend on whether any U.S. 

manufacturer decided to shift remaining U.S. production to lower-cost countries. 73 FR 

62034, 62101–02 (Oct. 17, 2008).

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

As stated in the NOPR, minor tooling changes would be necessary at all TSLs for 

standby mode and off mode standards. For all standby power levels, the most significant 

conversion costs are the research and development, testing, and certification of products 

with more-efficient components, which does not affect production line capacity. Thus, 

DOE believes manufacturers will be able to maintain manufacturing capacity levels and 

continue to meet market demand under new energy conservation standards. 73 FR 62034, 

62103 (Oct. 17, 2008).

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

DOE used the results of the industry characterization to group manufacturers 

exhibiting similar characteristics. However, DOE did not identify any manufacturer 
subgroups for microwave ovens that would justify a separate manufacturer subgroup.

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

During previous stages of this rulemaking DOE identified a number of 

requirements with which manufacturers of these microwave ovens must comply and 

which take effect within 3 years of the anticipated compliance date of the proposed new 

standards. DOE discusses these and other requirements, and includes the full details of 

the cumulative regulatory burden, in chapter 12 of the SNOPR TSD.

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

To estimate the energy savings through 2043 attributable to potential standards 

for microwave oven standby mode and off mode, DOE compared the energy 

consumption of those products under the base case to their energy consumption under 

each TSL. Table V.13 presents the forecasted NES for each TSL for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode. The savings were calculated using the approach described in

section IV.E.

Deleted: Table V.13
Table V.13 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Microwave Oven Standby 

Mode and Off Mode Power in 2014–2043

TSL

Microwave-Only 

Ovens and 

Countertop 

Combination Ovens 

(quads)

Built-In and Overthe-Range 

Combination 

Microwave Ovens

(quads)

Total*

(quads)

1 0.21 0.00 0.21

2 0.30 0.00 0.30

3 0.41* 0.01* 0.41

4 0.62 0.01 0.63

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product class sub-totals due to the rounding to two 

decimal places.

Chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD provides additional details on the NES values 

reported in Table V.13, and also presents tables that show the magnitude of the energy 

savings discounted at rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. Discounted energy savings 

represent a policy perspective in which energy savings realized farther in the future are 

less significant than energy savings realized in the nearer term.

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to the Nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from particular standard levels for microwave oven

standby mode and off mode. In accordance with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis,

30 DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. 

The 7-percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on private capital 

in the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns on real estate and small business capital as 

 

30 OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.)

Deleted: Table V.13
well as corporate capital. DOE used this discount rate to approximate the opportunity cost 

of capital in the private sector, because recent OMB analysis has found the average rate 

of return on capital to be near this rate. DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of standards on private consumption (e.g., through higher prices for 

products and reduced purchases of energy). This rate represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to their present value. This rate can be approximated 

by the real rate of return on long-term government debt (i.e., yield on Treasury notes 

minus annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has averaged about 3 

percent on a pre-tax basis for the past 30 years.

Table V.14 shows the consumer NPV results for each TSL DOE considered for 

both product classes of microwave ovens, using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount 

rate. In each case, the impacts, i.e., discounted operating cost savings and discounted 

incremental equipment costs, cover the lifetime of products purchased in 2014–2043. For 

Product Class 1 (microwave-only and countertop combination microwave ovens), the 

benefit-to-cost ratio is greater than or equal to nine for TSLs 1, 2, and 3 and greater than 

three for TSL 4, irrespective of discount rate. For Product Class 2 (built-in and over-therange combination microwave ovens), TSLs 2 and 4 have benefit-to-cost ratios of 

approximately five, irrespective of discount rate, while TSL 1, which incurs no additional 

cost relative to the baseline, has a limitless benefit-to-cost ratio. At TSL3, the benefits 

are 30 percent and 50 percent greater than the costs at discount rates of 7-percent and 3-

percent, respectively. See chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD for more detailed NPV results.

Deleted: Table V.14

Deleted: In each case, the impacts cover the 

lifetime of products purchased in 2014–2043.

Comment [A11]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.
Table V.14 Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Microwave 

Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode for Units Sold 2014–2043

TSL

Net Present Value (billion 2010$)

Microwave-Only 

Ovens and Countertop 

Combination 

Microwave Ovens

Built-In and Overthe-Range 

Combination 

Microwave Ovens Total*

7% 

Discount 

Rate

3% 

Discount 

Rate

7% 

Discount 

Rate

3% 

Discount 

Rate

7% 

Discount 

Rate

3% 

Discount 

Rate

1 1.01 1.97 0.01 0.02 1.02 1.98

2 1.41 2.75 0.02 0.03 1.42 2.78

3 1.81 3.58 0.01 0.02 1.82 3.59

4 2.21 4.53 0.04 0.08 2.25 4.60

* The total values may differ from the sum of the product class sub-totals due to the rounding to two 

decimal places.

The NPV results presented in Table V.14 are based on a learning rate of 28.9

percent, which is referred to as the “default” learning rate. DOE investigated the impact 

of different learning rates for product prices for the TSLs considered for microwave oven 

standby mode and off mode. DOE considered four learning rate sensitivities: (1) a “high 

learning” rate (37.0 percent); (2) a “low learning” rate (19.2 percent); (3) a “no learning” 

rate (constant real prices); and (4) a “microwave oven only” rate. The “microwave oven 

only” is based on limited set of historical price data specifically for microwave ovens.

DOE also analyzed a sensitivity based on the “chained price index--other consumer 

durable goods except ophthalmic” that was forecasted for use in AEO2010. This index is 

the most disaggregated category that includes appliances. Refer to appendix 8-E of the 

SNOPR TSD for details on the development of the above learning sensitivities.

Deleted: Table V.14
Table V.15 provides the annualized NPV of consumer benefits at a 3-percent 

discount rate, combined with the annualized present value of monetized benefits from 

CO2 and NOX emissions reductions, for each of the TSLs for the “default” learning rate 

and the sensitivity cases. Table V.16 provides the annualized NPVs using a 7-percent 

discount rate for consumer NPV. Section V.B.6 provides a complete description and 

summary of the monetized benefits from CO2 and NOX emissions reductions. For most of 

the TSLs, the difference between the default results and the sensitivities is insignificant.

Table V.15 Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode: Annualized Net Present 

Value of Consumer Benefits (3 Percent Discount Rate) and Annualized Present 

Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions for Products 

Shipped in 2014-2043*

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Default

LR

=28.9%

Low 

Learning

LR

=19.2%

High 

Learning

LR

=37.0%

No 

Learning

LR = 0%

(constant 

real prices)

Microwave 

Ovens Only 

LR = 39.6%

AEO2010

Chained 

Price 

Index 

Forecast

Billion 2010$

1 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

2 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

3 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22

4 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.30

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.3/metric 

ton in 2010 (in 2010$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic 

benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of $2,537/ton (in 2010$), which is the 

average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 3-percent discount rate. Because the 

discounted equipment cost increases at each TSL are very small relative to the discounted operating cost 

savings and the discounted monetized benefits of the emission reductions, the NPV as a function of 

learning rate does not change appreciably. In fact, the learning rate has a significant effect only on the 

NPV for TSL 4 where discounted equipment cost increases are relatively more significant. Comment [A12]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.
Table V.16 Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode: Annualized Net Present 

Value of Consumer Benefits (7 Percent Discount Rate) and Annualized Present 

Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX Emissions Reductions for Products 

Shipped in 2014-2043*

Trial 

Standard 

Level

Default

LR

=28.9%

Low 

Learning

LR

=19.2%

High 

Learning

LR

=37.0%

No 

Learning

LR = 0%

(constant 

real prices)

Sensitivity 

(Microwave 

Ovens 

Only)

LR = 39.6%

AEO2010

Chained 

Price 

Index 

Forecast

Billion 2010$

1 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

2 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

3 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18

4 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.24

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.3/metric 

ton in 2010 (in 2010$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic 

benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of $2,537/ton (in 2010$), which is the 

average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 7-percent discount rate. Because the 

discounted equipment cost increases at each TSL are very small relative to the discounted operating cost 

savings and the discounted monetized benefits of the emission reductions, the NPV as a function of 

learning rate does not change appreciably. In fact, the learning rate has a significant effect only on the 

NPV for TSL 4 where discounted equipment cost increases are relatively more significant.

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the indirect employment impacts of proposed 

standards on the economy in general. As discussed above, DOE expects energy 

conservation standards for microwave ovens to reduce energy bills for consumers of 

those products, and the resulting net savings to be redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. Those shifts in spending and economic activity could affect the demand for 

labor. As described in section IV.H, to estimate those effects, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy. DOE estimated the indirect employment impacts for the 

TSLs for both product classes of microwave ovens that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. DOE understands that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 

Comment [A13]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.

Deleted: presents the 

Deleted: net

Deleted: in various years 

Deleted: Chapter 13
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE generated

results for intermediate timeframes, such as 2015, where these uncertainties are reduced.

The results suggest the proposed standards are likely to have negligible impact on

the net demand for labor in the economy. The net change in jobs is so small that it would 

be imperceptible in national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 

effects on employment. Chapter 13 of the SNOPR TSD presents the detailed results.

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Product 

For the reasons stated in section III.D.1.d, DOE believes that for purposes of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV), the standby power level considered in this supplemental 

notice does not reduce the utility or performance of the microwave oven products under 

consideration in this rulemaking.

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

In weighing the promulgation of any proposed standards, DOE is required to 

consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the adoption of those 

standards. The determination of the likely competitive impacts stemming from a 

proposed standard is made by the Attorney General, who transmits this determination, 

along with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact, to the Secretary of Energy. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and (B)(ii))

Deleted: SNOPR TSD presents more detailed

Deleted: .

Deleted: Table . Net Change in National 

Indirect Employment ¶ ...

Comment [A14]: Changes recommended by 

OIRA.
The Attorney General’s determination for the October 2008 NOPR included 

cooking products but did not mention microwave oven standards. (DOJ, No. 53 at pp. 1–

2). To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination for the proposed 

standby mode and off mode standards, DOE has provided the Attorney General with 

copies of this notice and the TSD for review. DOE will consider the Attorney General’s 

opinion on the proposed rule in preparing the final rule.

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy

Improving the energy consumption of microwave oven standby mode and off 

mode, where economically justified, would likely improve the security of the Nation’s 

energy system by reducing overall demand for energy. Reduced electricity demand may

also improve the reliability of the electricity system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, Table V.17 presents the estimated reduction in national generating capacity for 

the TSLs that DOE considered in this rulemaking.

Table V.1717 Reduction in National Installed Electricity Generation Capacity under 

Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Trial Standard Levels

Gigawatts

TSL 2030 2043

1 0.190 0.196

2 0.274 0.284

3 0.377 0.390

4 0.581 0.601

Energy savings from more stringent microwave oven standby mode and off mode 

standards would also produce environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of 
air pollutants and greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Table V.18

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative CO2 and NOX emissions reductions that would 

result from the TSLs considered in this rulemaking. (Hg emission impacts are negligible 

and therefore not reported here.) In the environmental assessment (chapter 15 of the 

SNOPR TSD), DOE reports estimated annual changes in CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

attributable to each TSL.

Table V.18 Cumulative Emissions Reductions under Microwave Oven Standby 

Mode and Off Mode Trial Standard Levels in 2014–2043

TSL

1 2 3 4

CO2 (Mt) 15.84 22.88 31.48 48.46

NOX (1,000 

tons)

12.88 18.61 25.60 39.42

Mt = million metric tons. Values for NOx emissions reductions refer to short tons.

As discussed in section IV.J of this supplemental notice, DOE has not reported

SO2 emissions reductions from power plants because there is uncertainty about the effect 

of energy conservation standards on the overall level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE also did not include NOX emissions reduction 

from power plants in States subject to CAIR because an energy conservation standard 

would not affect the overall level of NOX emissions in those States due to the emissions 

caps mandated by CAIR.

DOE also estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions 

of CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the TSLs considered for microwave 

oven standby mode and off mode. In order to make this calculation similar to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced emissions 

expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in 2014–2043. Thus, the 

emissions reductions extend past 2043.

As discussed in section IV.K, DOE used values for the SCC developed by an

interagency process. The four values for CO2 emissions reductions resulting from that 

process (expressed in 2010$) are $4.9/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses 

a 5-percent discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 3-

percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-

percent discount rate), and $67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution that 

uses a 3-percent discount rate). These values correspond to the value of emission 

reductions in 2010; the values for later years are higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. For each of the four cases, DOE calculated a 

present value of the stream of annual values using the same discount rate as was used in 

the studies upon which the dollar-per-ton values are based. Table V.19 presents the 

global values of CO2 emissions reductions at each TSL. DOE calculated domestic values 

as a range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, and these results are 

presented in chapter 16 of the SNOPR TSD.
Table V.19 Estimates of Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reductions Under 

Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Trial Standard Levels for Products

Sold in 2014–2043

TSL

Million 2010$

5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount rate, 

average*

2.5% discount 

rate, average*

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile*

1 $70 $349 $589 $1,066 

2 $101 $505 $851 $1,539 

3 $139 $694 $1,170 $2,118 

4 $213 $1,069 $1,801 $3,259 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or 

drawn from a different part of the distribution. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the contribution 

of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in the future global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any value 

placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is subject to change. DOE, together 

with other Federal agencies, will continue to review various methodologies for estimating 

the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This ongoing review 

will consider the comments on this subject that are part of the public record for this and 

other rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. However, 

consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 

with this particular issue, DOE has included in this proposed rule the most recent values 

resulting from the ongoing interagency review process.

DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the economic 

benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions anticipated to result from new standby 

mode and off mode standards for microwave ovens. The dollar-per-ton values that DOE 
used are discussed in section IV.K. Table V.20 presents the cumulative present values for 

each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates.

Table V.20 Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reductions Under 

Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode Trial Standard Levels for Products

Sold in 2014–2043

TSL

3% discount rate

Million 2010$

7% discount rate

Million 2010$

1 3.74 to 38.46 1.92 to 19.76

2 5.41 to 55.56 2.78 to 28.55

3 7.44 to 76.44 3.82 to 39.28

4 11.45 to 117.7 5.89 to 60.5

The NPV of the monetized benefits associated with emissions reductions can be 

viewed as a complement to the NPV of the consumer savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. Table V.21 and Table V.22 presents the NPV values that 

result from adding the estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 and NOX emissions in each of four valuation scenarios to the NPV of 

consumer savings calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking, at both a 7-

percent and 3-percent discount rate. The CO2 values used in the columns of each table 

correspond to the four scenarios for the valuation of CO2 emission reductions presented 

in section IV.K.
Table V.21 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 7-Percent

Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX

Emissions Reductions for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode

TSL

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2

*

and Low 

Value for NOX

**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$22.3/metric ton 

CO2

*

and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$36.5/metric ton 

CO2

*

and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$67.6/metric ton 

CO2

*

and High 

Value for NOX

**

Billion 2010$

1 1.09 1.38 1.62 2.10

2 1.52 1.94 2.29 2.99

3 1.96 2.53 3.01 3.98

4 2.47 3.35 4.08 5.57

*

These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2010$. The present values have been calculated 

with scenario-consistent discount rates. 

** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per ton 

of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NOX emissions.

Table V.22 Results of Adding Net Present Value of Consumer Savings (at 3-Percent

Discount Rate) to Net Present Value of Monetized Benefits from CO2 and NOX

Emissions Reductions for Microwave Oven Standby Mode and Off Mode

TSL

Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2

*

and Low 

Value for NOX

**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$22.3/metric ton 

CO2

*

and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$36.5/metric ton 

CO2

*

and Medium 

Value for NOX

**

billion 2010$

SCC Value of 

$67.6/metric ton 

CO2

*

and High 

Value for NOX

**

Billion 2010$

1 2.06 2.35 2.59 3.09

2 2.89 3.31 3.66 4.37

3 3.74 4.33 4.81 5.79

4 4.83 5.74 6.47 7.98

*

These label values represent the global SCC in 2010, in 2010$. The present values have been calculated 

with scenario-consistent discount rates. 

** Low Value corresponds to $450 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,537 per ton 

of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,623 per ton of NOX emissions.

Although adding the value of consumer savings to the values of emission 

reductions provides a valuable perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the 
national operating cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur 

as a result of market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of operating cost savings and the SCC are performed with 

different methods that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national operating 

cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the present value of future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100.

7. Other Factors

The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) DOE has not considered other factors in development of 

the proposed standards in this SNOPR.

C. Proposed Standard

When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 

determining whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must determine 

whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to the greatest extent practicable, 

in light of the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 
The new or amended standard must also “result in significant conservation of energy.” 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))

For today’s SNOPR, DOE considered the impacts of standards at each TSL, 

beginning with the maximum technologically feasible level, to determine whether that 

level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it 

reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically feasible and economically 

justified and saves a significant amount of energy.

To aid the reader in understanding the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL,

Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the quantitative analytical results for 

each TSL, based on the assumptions and methodology discussed herein. In addition to the 

quantitative results presented in the table, DOE also considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. These include the impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers, such as low-income households and seniors, who may be disproportionately 

affected by a national standard. Section V.B.1 presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups.

In addition to the quantitative results, DOE also considered harmonization of 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode standards with international standby power

programs such as Korea’s e-standby program,31 Australia’s standby program,32 and 

 

31 Refer to: http://www.kemco.or.kr/new_eng/pg02/pg02100300.asp. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.)

Deleted: Table V.24
Japan’s Top Runner Program.33 Those programs seek to establish standby power ratings 

through the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 1-Watt Program, which seeks to lower 

standby power below 1 W for microwave ovens.34 Korea published a mandatory standby 

power standard of 1 W that became effective in 2010 and Australia will publish 

mandatory standby power standards of 1 W by 2012. In accordance with Japan’s Top 

Runner Program, Japanese appliance manufacturers made a voluntary declaration to 

reduce standby power of microwave ovens that lack a timer to as close to zero as possible 

and that of microwave ovens that have a timer to 1 W or lower.

DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-ranging discussion 

of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy savings in the absence of 

government intervention. Much of this literature attempts to explain why consumers 

appear to undervalue energy efficiency improvements. This undervaluation suggests that 

regulation that promotes energy efficiency can produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for example, reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of information; 

(2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of 

sufficient savings to warrant delaying or altering purchases (for example, an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the delayed replacement of a water pump); (4) 

excessive focus on the short term, in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy 

cost savings relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational or other 

 

32 Refer to: http://www.energyrating.gov.au/standby.html. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.)

33 Refer to: http://www.eccj.or.jp/top_runner/index.html. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.)

34 IEA Energy Information Centre. Standby Power Use and the IEA “1-Watt Plan.” Available at:

http://www.iea.org/subjectqueries/standby.asp. (Last accessed March 18, 2011.)
difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in 

incentives (that is, renter versus owner; builder vs. purchaser). Other literature indicates 

that with less than perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 

consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than expected rate 

between current consumption and uncertain future energy cost savings. 

In its current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the benefits and costs of a 

regulation due to changes in consumer purchase decisions are included in two ways: (1) 

If consumers forego a purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 

product manufacturers and the cost to manufacturers is included in the MIA, and (2) 

DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products actually used by 

consumers in the standards case; if a regulatory option decreases the number of products 

used by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings from an energy 

conservation standard. DOE provides detailed estimates of shipments and changes in the 

volume of product purchases in chapter 9 of the SNOPR TSD.

While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller quantifiable framework 

for estimating the benefits and costs of changes in consumer purchase decisions due to an 

energy conservation standard, DOE seeks comments on how to more fully assess the 

potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to 

quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Microwave Ovens

Table V.23 summarizes the quantitative impacts estimated for each TSL for 

microwave ovens. The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section 

V.A.
Table V.23 Summary of Results for Trial Standard Levels for Microwave Oven 

Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Use

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4

National Energy Savings (quads) 0.21 0.30 0.41 0.63

NPV of Consumer Benefits

(2010$ billion)

 7% discount rate 1.02 1.42 1.82 2.25

 3% discount rate 1.98 2.78 3.59 4.60

Manufacturer Impacts

Industry NPV (2010$ million) (27.1) to (29.3) (45.2) to (52.4) (52.9) to (73.6) (90.4) to (165.7) 

Industry NPV (% change) (2.4) to (2.6) (4.0) to (4.6) (4.7) to (6.5) (8.0) to (14.7)

Cumulative Emissions Reduction

CO2 (Mt) 15.84 22.88 31.48 48.46

NOx (thousand tons) 12.88 18.61 25.60 39.42

Value of Emissions Reductions

 CO2 (2010$ million)

*

 NOX – 3% discount rate (2010$ 

million)

 NOX – 7% discount rate (2010$ 

million)

70 to 1,066 101 to 1,539 139 to 2,118 213 to 3,259

3.74 to 38.5 5.41 to 55.6 7.44 to 76.4 11.5 to 118

1.92 to 19.8 2.78 to 28.6 3.82 to 39.3 5.89 to 60.5

Consumer Mean LCC Savings

(2010$)

 Product Class 1

 Product Class 2

7

6

10

11

13

4

15

27

Consumer Median PBP (years)

 Product Class 1

 Product Class 2

0.2

0.0

0.4

1.9

1.1

6.3

2.4

1.8

Distribution of Consumer LCC 

Impacts

 Product Class 1

 Net Cost (%) 0 0 0 0

 No Impact (%) 54 19 0 0

 Net Benefit (%)

Product Class 2

 Net Cost (%)

 No Impact (%)

 Net Benefit (%)

46

0

0

100

81

0

0

100

100

21

0

79

100

0

0

100

Reduction in Generation Capacity 

in 2043 (GW) 0.196 0.284 0.390 0.601

Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. For NPVs, a negative value means a decrease in NPV.

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced 

CO2 emissions.

First, DOE considered TSL 4, the max-tech level for microwave oven standby 

mode and off mode energy use. TSL 4 likely would save 0.63 quads of energy through 
2043, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the estimated NPV of 

consumer benefit is $2.25 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $4.60 billion, 

using a discount rate of 3 percent.

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 48.46 Mt of CO2 and 39.42

thousand tons of NOX, with a negligible impact on Hg emissions. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $213 million to 

$3,259 million. Total generating capacity in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.601 GW.

DOE projects that at TSL 4 for microwave-only ovens and countertop 

combination microwave ovens (Product Class 1), the average microwave oven consumer 

would experience a decrease in LCC of $15. DOE also estimates that all consumers who

purchase these microwave ovens would realize some LCC savings. The median payback 

period at TSL 4 is projected to be 2.4 years, substantially shorter than the lifetime of the 

product. DOE projects that at TSL 4 for built-in and over-the-range combination 

microwave ovens (Product Class 2), the average microwave oven consumer would 

experience a decrease in LCC of $27, and all consumers who purchase these microwave 

ovens would realize some LCC savings. The median payback period at TSL 4 is 

projected to be 1.8 years, substantially shorter than the lifetime of the product.

Although DOE estimates that all microwave oven consumers would benefit 

economically from TSL 4, the reduction in standby power consumption at TSL 4 would 

result in the loss of certain functions that provide utility to consumers, specifically the 
continuous clock display. Because it is uncertain how greatly consumers value this 

function, DOE is concerned that TSL 4 may result in significant loss of consumer utility.

For manufacturers of microwave ovens, DOE estimated a decrease in INPV that 

ranges from $90.4 million to $165.7 million. DOE recognizes that TSL 4 poses the risk of 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ expectations about reduced profit margins are 

realized. In particular, if the high end of the range of impacts is reached, as DOE expects, 

TSL 4 could result in a net loss of 14.7 percent in INPV to microwave oven 

manufacturers.

After carefully considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens of 

TSL 4, the Secretary has reached the following initial conclusion: At TSL 4, the benefits 

of energy savings, NPV of consumer benefit, positive consumer LCC impacts, and

emissions reductions would be outweighed by the potential burden on consumers from 

loss of product utility and the large capital conversion costs that could result in a

reduction in INPV for manufacturers.

DOE then considered TSL 3. Primary energy savings are estimated to be 0.41

quads of energy through 2043, which DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the 

estimated NPV of consumer benefit is $1.82 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, 

and $3.59 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 31.48 Mt of CO2 and 25.60

thousand tons of NOX, with a negligible impact on Hg emissions. The estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $139 million to 

$2,118 million. Total generating capacity in 2043 under TSL 3 is estimated to decrease 

by 0.390 GW.

For microwave-only ovens and countertop combination microwave ovens, DOE 

projects that at TSL 3 the average consumer would experience a decrease in LCC of $13, 

and all consumers who purchase these microwave ovens would realize some LCC

savings. At TSL 3 the median payback period is projected to be 1.1 years, substantially 

shorter than the lifetime of the product. In addition, DOE estimates that the reduction in 

standby power consumption under TSL 3 (to no greater than 1.0 W) would not impact 

consumer utility. The continuous clock display that would be lost under TSL 4 would be

retained at TSL 3.

For built-in and combination microwave ovens, DOE projects that at TSL 3 the

average consumer would experience a decrease in LCC of $4, and 79 percent of

consumers who purchase these microwave ovens would realize some LCC savings. At 

TSL 3 the median payback period is projected to be 6.3 years, shorter than the lifetime of 

the product.

For manufacturers of microwave ovens, DOE estimated that the projected 

decrease in INPV under TSL 3 would range from $52.9 million to $73.6 million. DOE 
recognizes the risk of large negative impacts at TSL 3 if manufacturers’ expectations 

about reduced profit margins are realized. In particular, if the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net loss of 6.5 percent in 

INPV to microwave oven manufacturers.

After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and the burdens, DOE 

has tentatively concluded that the benefits of energy savings, NPV of consumer benefit, 

positive consumer LCC impacts, and emissions reductions would outweigh the capital

conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for manufacturers. In particular, 

the Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 would save a significant amount of energy and is 

technologically feasible and economically justified. Therefore, DOE today proposes to 

adopt the energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode 

at TSL 3. Table V.23 presents the proposed standby mode and off mode energy 

conservation standards for microwave ovens.

Table V.23 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Microwave Oven Standby 

and Off Mode

Product Classes Proposed Energy Conservation Standard

Microwave-Only Ovens and Countertop 

Combination Microwave Ovens

Maximum Standby Power = 1.0 watt

Built-In and Over-the-Range 

Combination Microwave Ovens

Maximum Standby Power = 2.2 watts

2. Summary of Benefits and Costs (Annualized) of the Proposed Standards

The benefits and costs of today’s proposed standards can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

Deleted: Table V.24

Deleted: 24
annualized national economic value, expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings 

from using less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another 

way of representing consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of 

emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.

35 The value of the CO2

reductions is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of CO2 developed by a 

recent interagency process. The monetary costs and benefits of cumulative emissions 

reductions are reported in 2010$ to permit comparisons with the other costs and benefits 

in the same dollar units.

Although combining the values of operating savings and CO2 reductions provides 

a useful perspective, two issues should be considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of market 

transactions while the value of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings and SCC are performed with different methods that 

use different time frames for analysis. The national operating cost savings is measured for 

the lifetime of products shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values, on the other hand, 

 

35 DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 

values. First, DOE calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting the NPV of total 

consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7

percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of 

discount rates, as shown in Table V.26. From the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 

payment over a 30-year period, starting in 2011, that yields the same present value. The fixed annual 

payment is the annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the annualized values were determined would be a steady 

stream of payments.
reflect the present value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 

one ton of CO2 in each year. These impacts continue well beyond 2100.

Table V.24 shows the annualized values for the proposed standards for

microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use. The results for the primary 

estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other than

CO2 reductions, for which DOE used a 3-percent discount rate along with the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the standards proposed in 

today’s rule is $20.3 million per year in increased product costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $167 million in reduced product operating costs, $35.4 million in CO2

reductions, and $1.74 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $184 million per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and 

costs and the SCC series corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the

standards proposed in today’s rule is $21.6 million per year in increased product costs, 

while the annualized benefits are $205 million in reduced operating costs, $35.4 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $2.14 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $221 million per year.

Deleted: Table V.25
Table V.24 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (TSL 3) for 

Microwave Ovens Sold in 2014–2043

Discount Rate

Primary 

Estimate* Low Estimate* High Estimate*

Monetized (million 2010$/year)

Benefits

Operating Cost Savings

7% 167 150 185

3% 205 182 229

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** 5% 9.02 8.49 9.55

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** 3% 35.4 33.3 37.6

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** 2.5% 55.9 52.5 59.3

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** 3% 108.0 101.5 114.6

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t**

7% 1.74 1.65 1.82

3% 2.14 2.02 2.26

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 178 to 277 160 to 253 196 to 301

7% 204 185 224

3% 243 217 269

3% plus CO2 range 216 to 315 193 to 286 241 to 346

Costs

Incremental Product Costs

7% 20.32 23.39 20.25

3% 21.59 25.48 21.48

Total Net Benefits

Total†

7% plus CO2 range 157 to 256 137 to 230 176 to 281

7% 184 162 204

3% 221 192 247

3% plus CO2 range 195 to 294 167 to 260 219 to 324

*

The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO

2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In 

addition, the Low estimate uses incremental product costs that reflects constant prices (no learning rate) for 

product prices, and the High estimate uses incremental product costs that reflects a declining trend (high 

learning rate) for product prices. 

Deleted: 25
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under 

several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions 

calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 

95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is 

the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount 

rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as “7% plus CO2 range” and “3% plus CO2 

range,” the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values 

are added to the full range of CO2 values.

VI. Additional Technical Corrections to 10 CFR 430.32

In today’s SNOPR, DOE is also proposing the following technical corrections to 

the language contained in 10 CFR 430.32. DOE notes that the title of 10 CFR 430.32, 

“Energy and water conservation standards and their effective dates” contains dates 

required for compliance with energy and water conservation standards rather than the 

effective dates of such standards. As a result, DOE is proposing to revise the title of 10 

CFR 430.32 to read “Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance 

dates.” DOE also notes that the current energy conservation standards for cooking 

products found at 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2) should be revised to more accurately reflect 

the date required for compliance with energy conservation standards. DOE is proposing 

to revise the language in 10 CFR 430.32(j)(1)-(2) to state that products manufactured on 

or after the compliance date must meet the required energy conservation standard.

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify the problem that it intends to 

address, including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions 
that warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. The 

problems that today’s proposed standards address are as follows:

(1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information processing capability 

about energy efficiency opportunities in the home appliance market.

(2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has more and better 

information than the other) and/or high transactions costs (costs of gathering 

information and effecting exchanges of goods and services).

(3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy efficiency of 

microwave ovens that are not captured by the users of such equipment. These 

benefits include externalities related to environmental protection and energy 

security that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of 

greenhouse gases.

In addition, DOE has determined that today’s regulatory action is an 

“economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 

12866. Accordingly, section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order requires that DOE prepare a 

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule and that OIRA review this rule. DOE 

presented to OIRA for review the draft rule and other documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has included these documents in the rulemaking 

record. The assessments prepared pursuant to Executive Order 12866 can be found in the 

TSD for this rulemaking. [INSERT URL]
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued 

on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental 

to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory 

review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 

reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 

society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 

things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that 

regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, 

such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can 

be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies “to use the 

best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.” In its guidance, OIRA has emphasized that such techniques may 

include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.” For the reasons stated in the 
preamble, DOE believes that today’s SNOPR is consistent with these principles, 

including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and 

that net benefits are maximized.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 

67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website (www.gc.doe.gov ).

For manufacturers of microwave ovens, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 

has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for 

the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 

FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545 (Sept. 5, 2000) and 

codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards. DOE used the size 
standards the SBA published on November 5, 2010, as amended, to determine whether 

any small entities would be required to comply with the rule. Microwave oven

manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335221, “Manufacturers of Household Cooking 

Appliances.” The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less for an entity to be 

considered as a small business for this category.

The microwave oven industry consists of seven manufacturers that have a market 

share greater than 3 percent. Most are large, foreign companies that import microwave 

ovens into the United States. There are U.S. facilities that partly assemble microwave 

ovens. However, no domestic facilities are small businesses. Furthermore none of the 

microwave oven manufacturers are small business manufacturers. Thus, DOE did not 

conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Manufacturers of microwave ovens must certify to DOE that their product 

complies with any applicable energy conservation standard. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their product according to the DOE test procedure for microwave 

ovens, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. DOE has established

regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, including microwave ovens. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 16, 

2010). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. 
Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection 

of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information 

displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) of the impacts of the 

proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (10 CFR part 1021). This assessment includes an examination of the 

potential effects of emission reductions likely to result from the rule in the context of 

global climate change, as well as other types of environmental impacts. The draft EA has 

been included as chapter 15 of the SNOPR TSD. Before issuing a final rule for 

microwave oven standby mode and off mode energy use, DOE will consider public 

comments and, as appropriate, determine whether to issue a finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) as part of a final EA or to prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for this rulemaking.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism," 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive 

Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting 

any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully 

assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have 

an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. 

EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 

conservation for the products that are the subject of today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new 

regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform," imposes on 

Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, 

if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides 

a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 

reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; 

and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under 

any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 

section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, 

to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each 

Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. No. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 

U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause 

the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), 

section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 
U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments 

on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for 

giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov.

Although today’s proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more on the private sector. 

Specifically, the proposed rule will likely result in a final rule that could require 

expenditures of $100 million or more. Such expenditures may include (1) investment in 

research and development and in capital expenditures by microwave oven manufacturers 

in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standard, and (2) 

incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency 

microwave ovens, starting in 2014.

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed 

rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to 

a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking and the “Regulatory Impact Analysis,” chapter 17 of the TSD for this 

supplemental proposed rule, respond to those requirements.

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider 

a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a 

written statement under section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 

that achieves the objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing 

otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 

42 U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), today’s proposed rule would establish energy conservation 

standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode that are designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy use that DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and economically justified. A full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for today’s supplemental 

proposed rule.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment 

for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 

1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require 

compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of 

information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 

2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s SNOPR under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it 

is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as 

any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 

rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 
successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 

significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must 

give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has tentatively concluded that today’s regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for microwave oven standby mode and off mode, is not a 

significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been 

designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the proposed rule.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and 

Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the 

Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by 

the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 

the Government’s scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin 
defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does 

have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 

decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667.

In response to OMB’s Bulletin and as more fully set forth in the October 2008 

NOPR, DOE conducted formal in-progress peer reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report 

pertaining to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 

report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using objective criteria 

and qualified and independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. The “Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report” dated February 2007 has been disseminated 

and is available at the following Web site: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

VIII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend the public 

meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As explained in the ADDRESSES section, foreign 
nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening 

procedures.

In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 

webinar participants will be published on DOE’s website [INSERT LINK]. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request 

that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons 

may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF 

(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the 

appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. 

The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before 

the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to 

receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to 

enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also 

use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to 

establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on 

any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.

The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for 

prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make 

a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of 

specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly 

on any general statements.

At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to 

clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants 

should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning 

these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 

matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will 

accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above 

procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any 

person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule 

before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the DATES 

section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments 

using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 

notice.

Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will 

be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not 

be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly 

because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in 

the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you 

do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any 
document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and 

last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will 

waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, 

see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if 

large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 

viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, 
email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not 

be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Email submissions are preferred. If you submit via mail or 

hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit 

printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should 

be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) 

file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and are free of any 

defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 

encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter 

with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment 

processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from 

public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with 

the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or 

on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status 

of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why 

such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the 

information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning 

its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person 

which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the 

information would be contrary to the public interest.

It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the 

comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning 

the following issues:

1. Input and data regarding off mode power for microwave ovens;
2. Input and data on the utility provided by specific features that contribute to 

microwave oven standby power. In particular, DOE seeks information on any 

lessening of the utility or the performance of microwave display technologies

and low- and zero-standby power cooking sensors as compared to absolute 

humidity cooking sensors currently used in microwave ovens on the U.S. 

market.

3. Input and data on control strategies available to enable manufacturers to make 

design tradeoffs between incorporating standby-power-consuming features 

such as displays or cooking sensors and including a function to turn power off 

to these components during standby mode. DOE also seeks comment on the 

viability and cost of microwave oven control board circuitry that could 

accommodate transistors to switch off cooking sensors and displays;

4. Whether switching or similar modern power supplies can operate successfully 

inside a microwave oven and the associated efficiency impacts on standby 

power;

5. Input and data on the estimated incremental manufacturing costs, as well as 

the assumed approaches to achieve TSL 3 for microwave oven standby mode 

and off mode. DOE also seeks comment on whether any intellectual property 

or patent infringement issues are associated with the design options presented 

in the SNOPR TSD to achieve TSL 3. In particular, DOE seeks comment on 

any lessening of competition due to intellectual property or patent 

infringement issues associated with low- and zero-standby power cooking 

sensors;

Deleted: of 

Deleted: , as well as on 

Deleted: that do not require standby power;

Comment [A15]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.

Comment [A16]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.
6. Input and data on the estimated market share of microwave ovens at the 

standby power consumption stipulated by TSL 3.

7. Information on any utility or performance impacts to built-ins at the standard 

level proposed by DOE. 

IX.Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today’s proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 

10 CFR Part 429 

10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy 

conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on

_________________________________

Henry Kelly

Acting Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Comment [A17]: Change recommended by 

OIRA.

Deleted: 10 CFR Part 430

187

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 

430, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 429 -- CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT

1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.

2. In § 429.23 revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§ 429.23 Conventional cooking tops, conventional ovens, microwave ovens.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Pursuant to §429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall include the following 

public product-specific information: For conventional cooking tops and conventional 

ovens: the type of pilot light and a declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated the 

applicable design requirements. For microwave ovens, the average standby power in 

watts.

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

Deleted: chapter II, subchapter D

Moved (insertion) [1]
188

2. In § 430.23 revise paragraph (i)(3) to read as follows:

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water consumption.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(3) The standby power for microwave ovens shall be determined according to 

3.2.4 of appendix I to this subpart. The standby power shall be rounded off to the nearest 

0.1 watt.

* * * * *

3. In § 430.32 revise the heading and paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their compliance dates.

* * * * *

(j) Cooking Products (1) Gas cooking products with an electrical supply cord 

manufactured on or after January 1, 1990, shall not be equipped with a constant burning 

pilot light. 

(2) Gas cooking products without an electrical supply cord manufactured on or 

after April 9, 2012, shall not be equipped with a constant burning pilot light.

(3) Microwave-only ovens and countertop combination microwave ovens

manufactured on or after [date 3 years after final rule Federal Register publication] shall 

have an average standby power not more than 1.0 watt. Built-in and over-the-range 

combination microwave ovens manufactured on or after [date 3 years after final rule

Federal Register publication] shall have an average standby power not more than 2.2 

watts. 
189

* * * * *

Deleted: 4. Section 429.23(b)(2) is revised to 

read as follows:¶

§ 429.23 Submission of data.¶

* * * * *¶

Moved up [1]: (b) * * *¶

(2) Pursuant to §429.12(b)(13), a certification report 

shall include the following public product-specific 

information: For conventional cooking tops and 

conventional ovens: the type of pilot light and a 

declaration that the manufacturer has incorporated 

the applicable design requirements. For microwave 

ovens, the average standby power in watts.¶